Search Results

LOGIQ Totus is intended for use by a qualified physician for ultrasound evaluation of Fetal/Obstetrics; Abdominal(including Renal, Gynecology/Pelvic), Pediatric; Small organ(Breast, Testes, Thyroid); Neonatal Cephalic; Adult Cephalic; Cardiac(Adult and Pediatric), Peripheral Vascular, Musculo-skeletal Conventional and Superficial; Urology(including Prostate); Transrectal; Transvaginal; Transesophageal and Intraoperative(Abdominal and Vascular).

Modes of operation includes: B, M, PW Doppler, CW Doppler, Color Doppler, Color M Doppler, Power Doppler, Harmonic Imaging, Coded Pulse, 3D/4D Imaging mode, Elastography, Shear Wave Elastography, Attenuation Imaging and Combined modes: B/M, B/Color, B/PWD, B/Color/PWD, B/Power/PWD.

The LOGIQ Totus is intended to be used in a hospital or medical clinic.

The LOGIQ Totus is full featured, Track 3 device, primarily intended for general purpose diagnostic ultrasound system which consists of a mobile console approximately 490mm wide (monitor width: 545mm), 835mm deep and 1415~1815mm high that provides digital acquisition, processing and display capability. The user interface includes a computer keyboard, specialized controls, 14-inch LCD touch screen and color 23.8-inch LCD & HDU image display.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the LOGIQ Totus Ultrasound System (K253370) describes the acceptance criteria and the study for the Ultrasound Guided Fat Fraction for adult imaging (UGFF) software feature. This feature is being added to the LOGIQ Totus and is similar to a previously cleared Siemens UDFF feature.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes the performance of the UGFF feature by comparing it to MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction (MRI-PDFF) and, in a separate confirmatory study, to a predicate UDFF device. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the reported strong correlations and limits of agreement with these reference standards.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Primary Study (UGFF vs. MRI-PDFF):

  • Sample Size: 582 participants
  • Data Provenance: External clinical study in Japan (Population: Asian). The study was retrospective or prospective is not specified, but the phrase "obtained from the liver of five hundred and eighty-two (582) participants" suggests a data collection event rather than a purely retrospective analysis of existing medical records. The study is described as an "external clinical study," further suggesting a dedicated data collection.

• First Confirmatory Study (UGFF vs. MRI-PDFF):

  • Sample Size: 15 US patients and 5 EU patients (total 20 patients)
  • Data Provenance: US and EU patients. Demographic information on the 5 EU patients was unavailable. This was conducted as a "confirmatory study."

• Second Confirmatory Study (UGFF vs. UDFF):

  • Sample Size: 24 EU patients
  • Data Provenance: EU patients. This was conducted as a "confirmatory study."

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not specify an adjudication method. For the UGFF feature, the "ground truth" was objective measurements (MRI-PDFF or a predicate device's UDFF), which typically do not require adjudication by human experts in the same way an image diagnosis might.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done for the UGFF feature as described. The studies focused on comparing the device's output (UGFF index) to an objective reference standard (MRI-PDFF or another device's UDFF), not on how human readers' performance improved with or without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was done. The UGFF index, based on acoustic property measurements, is compared directly to MRI-PDFF and UDFF. This indicates the algorithm's performance independent of human interpretation or intervention in the final measurement calculation. While a technologist operates the ultrasound system, the UGFF index calculation itself is an algorithmic output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used is MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction (MRI-PDFF) measurements, which are quantitative and objective reference standards for liver fat quantification. Additionally, for one confirmatory study, the ground truth was the Ultrasound-Derived Fat Fraction (UDFF) from a Siemens Acuson S3000/S2000, functioning as a predicate device's output. These are akin to "outcomes data" or "established reference standard measurements."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document states: "During the migration of the AI software feature from LOGIQ E10s (K231989), the algorithm was not retrained and there were no changes to the algorithmic flow or the AI components performing the inferencing." This implies the training set was associated with the original clearance of the Auto Renal Measure Assistant on the LOGIQ E10s (K231989) but the sample size for the training set is not provided in this document.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Similarly, since the algorithm was not retrained and the document pertains to the migration of an existing AI feature, the method for establishing the ground truth for the original training set is not provided in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device