(200 days)
DeepCatch analyzes CT images and auto-segments anatomical structures (skin, bone, muscle, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, internal organs and central nervous system). Then, its volume and proportions are calculated and provided with the relevant 3D model.
By using DeepCatch, it is possible to obtain accurate values for the volume and proportion of each anatomical structures by secondary utilization of CT images obtained for various purposes in the medical field. The type of input data is whole body CT. This device is intended to be used in conjunction with professional clinical judgement. The physician is responsible for inspecting and confirming all results.
DeepCatch is medial image processing software that provides 3D reconstruction and visualization of ROI, advanced image quality improvement, auto segmentation for specific target, texture analysis, etc. Data that accurately analyzes the amount of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue distributed in the body in 3D can be used as base data in various fields.
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text.
DeepCatch Device Performance Study Analysis
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the null and alternative hypotheses for the performance tests. The reported device performance is the outcome of these tests.
| Test Type & Metric | Acceptance Criteria (Alternative Hypothesis) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Internal Datasets (n=100) | ||
| DSC (between GT & DeepCatch segmentation results) | Group's DSC mean ≥ 0.900 | DSC means ≥ 90% (met) |
| External Datasets (n=580) | ||
| DSC (between GT & DeepCatch segmentation results) | Group's DSC mean ≥ 0.900 | DSC mean > 90% in all areas (met) |
| Volume (Difference between GT & DeepCatch measurement results) | Mean of within-group difference < ±10% (0.10) | Mean value of volume < 10% (met) |
| Area (Difference between GT & DeepCatch measurement results) | Mean of within-group difference < ±10% (0.10) | Mean value of area < 10% (met) |
| Ratio (Difference between GT & DeepCatch measurement results) | Mean of within-group difference < ±1% (0.01) | Mean value of ratio < 1% (met) |
| Body Circumference (Difference between GT & DeepCatch measurement results) | Mean of within-group difference < ±5% (0.05) | Mean value of body circumference < 5% (met) |
| US-based Datasets (n=167) | ||
| DSC (all anatomical structures) | Group's DSC mean ≥ 0.900 | DSC mean > 90% (met) |
| Volume | Mean of within-group difference < ±10% | Volume < 10% (met) |
| Area | Mean of within-group difference < ±10% | Area < 1% (implies the same criteria for ratio) (met) |
| Abdominal Circumference (error measurement) | Mean of within-group difference < ±5% | Error measurements for GT to abdominal circumference < 5% (met) |
| Comparative Performance Test: | ||
| DSC (DeepCatch vs. MEDIP PRO) | DeepCatch DSC not inferior to MEDIP PRO | DeepCatch DSC was not inferior to MEDIP PRO, and showed better performance for Muscle segmentation (met) |
| Volume, Ratio, Area, Body Circumference (DeepCatch vs. Synapse 3D) | DeepCatch performance not inferior to Synapse 3D for these metrics | DeepCatch showed no difference compared to Synapse 3D, and showed better performance in AVF Area (AW) and SF Area (AW) (met) |
2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance
- Internal Datasets: n=100. Provenance not explicitly stated for internal datasets, but the context implies they are from unmentioned sources used internally for development/initial testing.
- External Datasets: n=580.
- Country of Origin: Korea (562 scans), France (18 scans).
- Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but typically external datasets for validation are retrospective.
- US-based Datasets: n=167.
- Country of Origin: US-based locations (East River Medical Imaging).
- Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but likely retrospective.
- Comparative Performance Test (MEDIP PRO): n=100.
- Country of Origin: US (scanners from Siemens and Healthineers).
- Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but likely retrospective.
- Comparative Performance Test (Synapse 3D): n=100.
- Country of Origin: US (scanners from Siemens and Healthineers).
- Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but likely retrospective.
3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth
- The text states: "Ground truthing for each image was created by a licensed physician" for the comparative performance tests (MEDIP PRO and Synapse 3D comparison sets).
- For the internal, external, and US-based datasets, it refers to "GT" (Ground Truth) but does not explicitly state how many experts or their specific qualifications for establishing this ground truth, only that DeepCatch's results were compared against this GT. It is strongly implied the GT was expert-created, as is standard practice for medical image segmentation/measurement.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 consensus) for establishing the ground truth on any of the test sets. It only mentions that "Ground truthing for each image was created by a licensed physician." This might imply a single expert per case, or a process not detailed in the summary.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
- No, a "Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study" involving human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance was not conducted or described.
- The comparative performance tests focused on comparing the algorithm's performance directly against predicate devices (other algorithms), not on human reader performance with and without AI assistance.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study
- Yes, standalone performance studies were done.
- The "Performance test using data set from Korea (562) and France (18)" and the "Performance test using data set from US-based locations with DeepCatch" are examples of standalone algorithm performance evaluations, where the DeepCatch algorithm's segmentation and measurement results were compared directly against the established Ground Truth (GT).
- The "Comparative Performance Test" sections also evaluate the algorithm's standalone performance against other algorithms (predicate devices), rather than human-in-the-loop performance.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
- The ground truth used was expert consensus / expert-labeled data.
- The text explicitly states for the comparative performance tests: "Ground truthing for each image was created by a licensed physician."
- For the other performance tests, "GT" is referenced, implying a similar expert-derived ground truth. There's no mention of pathology or outcomes data being used as ground truth for segmentation or volume measurements.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
- The document states: "All data used images independent of the images used to learn the algorithm."
- However, the specific sample size for the training set is not provided in this summary.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- The document implies that the training data had its own ground truth ("images used to learn the algorithm"), but it does not describe how the ground truth for the training set was established. This information is typically found in a more detailed technical report.
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/0 description: The image contains the logos of the Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Department of Health & Human Services logo is on the left, and the FDA logo is on the right. The FDA logo includes the text "U.S. Food & Drug Administration" in blue.
Medicalip Co., Ltd. % Jonghyun Kim, CEO GMS Consulting 4th Floor, Digital Cube, 34, Sangamsan-ro, Mapo-gu Mapo-gu Seoul, 03909 KOREA
June 16, 2023
Re: K223556
Trade/Device Name: DeepCatch Regulation Number: 21 CFR 892.2050 Regulation Name: Medical image management and processing system Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: QIH Dated: May 17, 2023 Received: May 17, 2023
Dear Jonghyun Kim:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. Although this letter refers to your product as a device, please be aware that some cleared products may instead be combination products. The 510(k) Premarket Notification Database located at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm identifies combination product submissions. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part
{1}------------------------------------------------
801 and Part 809); medical device reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803) for devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/guidance-regulatory-information/postmarketing-safety-reportingcombination-products); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820) for devices or current good manufacturing practices (21 CFR 4, Subpart A) for combination products; and, if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-safety/medical-device-reportingmdr-how-report-medical-device-problems.
For comprehensive regulatory information about medical devices and radiation-emitting products, including information about labeling regulations, please see Device Advice (https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance) and CDRH Learn (https://www.fda.gov/training-and-continuing-education/cdrh-learn). Additionally, you may contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE) to ask a question about a specific regulatory topic. See the DICE website (https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-advice-comprehensive-regulatoryassistance/contact-us-division-industry-and-consumer-education-dice) for more information or contact DICE by email (DICE@fda.hhs.gov) or phone (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100).
Sincerely.
Jessica Lamb
Jessica Lamb, Ph.D. Assistant Director Imaging Software Team DHT8B: Division of Radiological Imaging Devices and Electronic Products OHT8: Office of Radiological Health Office of Product Evaluation and Quality Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known) K223556
Device Name DeepCatch
Indications for Use (Describe)
Deep Catch analyzes CT images and auto-segments anatomical structures (skin, bone, muscle, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, internal organs and central nervous system). Then, its volume and proportions are calculated and provided with the relevant 3D model.
By using DeepCatch, it is possible to obtain accurate values for the volume and proportion of each anatomical structures by secondary utilization of CT images obtained for various purposes in the medical field. The type of input data is whole body CT. This device is intended to be used in conjunction with professional clinical judgement. The physician is responsible for inspecting and confirming all results.
| Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable) | |
|---|---|
| ------------------------------------------------- | -- |
X Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D)
| Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C)
CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE PAGE IF NEEDED.
This section applies only to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DO NOT SEND YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE PRA STAFF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW.
The burden time for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed and complete and review the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Office of Chief Information Officer Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Staff PRAStaff(@fda.hhs.gov
"An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number."
{3}------------------------------------------------
510(k) Summary
[As Required by 21 CFR 807.92]
1. Date Prepared [21 CFR 807.92(a)(a)]
June 13, 2023
2. Submitter's Information [21 CFR 807.92(a)(1)]
| • | Name of Manufacturer: | MEDICAL IP Co., Ltd. |
|---|---|---|
| • | Address: | SNUH Cancer Research Center 806, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, KR 0308 |
| • | Contact Name: | Jun-sik Yoon |
| • | Telephone No.: | +82 10-8277-2909 |
| • | Email Address: | jsyoon@medicalip.com |
| • | Registration No.: | 3016579137 |
3. Trade Name, Common Name, Classification [21 CFR 807.92(a)(2)]
| 510(k) Number | K223556 |
|---|---|
| Trade/Device/Model Name | DeepCatch |
| Product Name | Picture archiving and communications system |
| Device Classification Name | Medical Image management and processing system |
| Regulation Number | 21 CFR 892.2050 |
| Classification Product Code | QIH |
| Device Class | II |
| 510(k) Review Panel | Radiology |
{4}------------------------------------------------
4. Identification of Predicate Device(s) [21 CFR 807.92(a)(3)]
The identified predicate device within this submission is shown as follow;
Predicate Device #1
| 510(k) Number | K191026 |
|---|---|
| Trade/Device/Model Name | MEDIP PRO |
| Device Classification Name | System, Image Processing, Radiological |
| Regulation Number | 21 CFR 892.2050 |
| Classification Product Code | LLZ |
| Device Class | II |
| 510(k) Review Panel | Radiology |
Predicate Device #2
| 510(k) Number | K130542 |
|---|---|
| Trade/Device/Model Name | SYNAPSE 3D LUNG AND ABDOMEN ANALYSIS |
| Device Classification Name | System, Image Processing, Radiological |
| Regulation Number | 21 CFR 892.2050 |
| Classification Product Code | LLZ |
| Device Class | II |
| 510(k) Review Panel | Radiology |
These predicate devices have not been subject to a design-related recall
{5}------------------------------------------------
5. Description of the Device [21 CFR 807.92(a)(4)]
DeepCatch is medial image processing software that provides 3D reconstruction and visualization of ROI, advanced image quality improvement, auto segmentation for specific target, texture analysis, etc. Data that accurately analyzes the amount of skeletal muscle and adipose tissue distributed in the body in 3D can be used as base data in various fields.
6. Indications for use [21 CFR 807.92(a)(5)]
DeepCatch analyzes CT images and auto-segments anatomical structures (skin, bone, muscle, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, internal organs and central nervous system). Then, its volume and proportions are calculated and provided with the relevant 3D model.
By using DeepCatch, it is possible to obtain accurate values for the volume and proportion of each anatomical structures by secondary utilization of CT images obtained for various purposes in the medical field. The type of input data is whole body CT. This device is intended to be used in conjunction with professional clinical judgement. The physician is responsible for inspecting and confirming all results.
{6}------------------------------------------------
7. Technological Characteristics (Equivalence to Predicate Device) [21 CFR 807.92(a)(6)]
There are no significant differences in the technological characteristics of these devices compared to the predicate devices which adversely affect safety or effectiveness. Provided below is a table summarizing and comparing the technological characteristics of the DeepCatch and the predicate devices:
| Item | Proposed Device | Predicate Device #1 | Predicate Device #2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| K Number | K223556 | K191026 | K130542 |
| Manufacturer | MEDICALIP CO., LTD. | MEDICALIP CO., LTD. | FUJIFILM MEDICALSYSTEM U.S.A., INC. |
| Model Name | DeepCatch | MEDIP PRO | SYNAPSE 3D LUNG ANDABDOMEN ANALYSIS |
| Product Code | QIH | LLZ | LLZ |
| RegulationNumber | 21 CFR 892.2050 | 21 CFR 892.2050 | 21 CFR 892.2050 |
| Technological characteristics | |||
| Indications forUse | DeepCatch analyzes CT images and auto-segments anatomical structures (skin, bone, muscle, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, internal organs and central nervous system). Then, its volume and proportions are calculated and provided with the relevant 3D model. By using DeepCatch, it is possible to obtain accurate values for the volume and proportion of each anatomical structures by secondary utilization of CT images obtained for various purposes in the medical field. This device is intended to be used in conjunction with professional clinical judgement. The type of input data is whole body CT. The physician is responsible for inspecting and confirming all results. | MEDIP PRO is intended for use as a software interface and image segmentation system for the transfer of DICOM imaging information from a medical scanner to an output file. It is also used as pre-operative software for treatment planning. The 3D printed models generated from the output file are meant for non-diagnostic use. MEDIP PRO should be used in conjunction with other diagnostic tools and expert clinical judgement. | Synapse 3D Lung and Abdomen Analysis is medical imaging software used with Synapse 3D Base Tools that is intended to provide trained medical professionals with tools to aid them in reading, interpreting, and treatment planning. Synapse 3D Lung and Abdomen Analysis accepts DICOM compliant medical images acquired from CT. This product is not intended for use with or for the primary diagnostic interpretation of Mammography images. Addition to Synapse 3D Base Tools, Synapse 3D Lung and Abdomen Analysis is intended to: use non-contrast and contrast enhanced computed tomographic images of the lung, provide custom workflows and UI, and reporting functions for lung analysis including boundary detection and volume calculation for pulmonary nodules in the lung based on the location specified by the user, segmentation of bronchial tubes in the lung, approximation of air supply region by the user specified |
| [Table 1. Comparison of Proposed Device to Predicate Devices] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
{7}------------------------------------------------
| Item | Proposed Device | Predicate Device #1 | Predicate Device #2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| displaying and processinglow absorption regions in thelung. | |||
| - use non-contrasted CTimages and calculatesubcutaneous fat andvisceral fat areas in 2D andboth volumes in 3D. | |||
| - analyze a bronchus path toreach a lung nodule usingthe volume data collectedwith CT, and simulateinsertion of bronchoscope | |||
| into the path. | |||
| Type of use | Prescription Use | Prescription Use | Prescription Use |
| User population | Clinical expert | Clinical expert | Clinical expert |
| Image Modalities | DICOM imaginginformation from CT | DICOM imaginginformation from CT, MRI | DICOM imaginginformation from CT |
| Feature/Functionality | -Analysis & Measurement-2D/3D visualization-Segmentation-3D Rendering-Exporting CSV data-Calculation of BMI | -Analysis & Measurement-Image Enhancement-2D/3D visualization-Segmentation-3D Rendering-Exporting STL data for3D Printing | -Analysis & Measurement-Image Enhancement-2D/3D visualization-Segmentation-3D Rendering-Export Report-Calculation of BMI-AbdominalCircumference |
| SegmentationRegions | Skin, Bone, Muscle,abdominal visceral fat,subcutaneous fat,internal organs, centralnervous system | Skin, Bone, Muscle,abdominal visceral fat,subcutaneous fat,internal organs, centralnervous system, LungPulmonary VesselLiverFemurEtc. (Manualsegmentation) | Visceral fat,Subcutaneous fat |
| Visualization/EditTools | 2D View-zoom in-zoom out 3D View- Anterior-Posterior-Superior-Inferior-Right-Left-Smooth | 2D View-zoom in-zoom out 3D View- Anterior-Posterior-Superior-Inferior-Right-Left-Smooth | *2D View-Cine Play-Switch display types-Real time stackreconstruction-Link coordinates-Capture slice-Browse study data-Image store and restore*3D View-2D cross section-Compare with paststudies-Switch betweenSYNC/ASYNC-Series registration-Virtual endoscope |
| Data reporting | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Item | Proposed Device | Predicate Device #1 | Predicate Device #2 |
| Export fileformats | Yes | Yes | Yes |
{8}------------------------------------------------
A detailed comparison shows the subject device is substantially equivalent in intended use, software type, modality support operating system, image communication standard and functionality to the predicate device. The subject device only intends to be a software for treatment planning and does not include the simulation of treatment options. The 3D printed models generated from the output file are meant for non-diagnostic use. The differences between the subject and predicate device do not raise any new questions regarding safety and effectiveness.
8. Non-Clinical Test summary
The DeepCatch complies with voluntary standards for electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility. The following data were provided in support of the substantial equivalence determination:
- Software Validation
The DeepCatch contains MODERATE level of concern software was designed and developed according to a software development process and was verified and validated. Software information is provided in accordance with FDA quidance:
- . "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices," dated May 11, 2005.
2) Performance test
The DeepCatch application has been validated for its intended use to determine substantial equivalence to the predicate device. The device functionalities were performed, verified and validated to be within specification.
| Datasets | Items | Group | Null hypothesis | Alternative hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InternalDatasets(n=100) | DSC | DSC between 'GT' and'segmentation results ofDeepCatch' | Group's DSC mean isless than 0.900. | Group's DSC mean isgreater than or equal to0.900. |
| ExternalDatasets(n=580) | DSC | DSC between 'GT' and'segmentation results ofDeepCatch' | Group's DSC mean isless than 0.900. | Group's DSC mean isgreater than or equal to0.900. |
| Volume | Difference between 'GT'and 'measurement resultsof DeepCatch' | The mean of the within-group difference isgreater than ±10%(0.10) | The mean of the within-group difference is lessthan ±10% (0.10). |
a) Performance test using data set from Korea (562) and France (18) with DeepCatch
{9}------------------------------------------------
| Area | The mean of the within-group difference isgreater than ±10%(0.10). | The mean of the within-group difference is lessthan ±10% (0.10). | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ratio | The mean of the within-group difference isgreater than ±1% (0.01). | The mean of the within-group difference isgreater than ±1% (0.01). | |
| BodyCircumference | The mean of the within-group difference isgreater than ±5% (0.05). | The mean of the within-group difference is lessthan ±5% (0.05). |
In the internal datasets test, DSC means of GT and segmentation results of DeepCatch shows greater than or equal to 90%.
In the external data sets test, the DSC mean of GT and segmentation results of DeepCatch in all areas is more than 90%, the mean value of volume and area for the difference between GT and measurement results of DeepCatch is less than 10%, the mean value of ratio for the difference between GT and measurement results of DeepCatch is less than 1%, and body circuit reference mean value is less than 5%.
b) Performance test using data set from US-based locations with DeepCatch
To test that the performance associated with the safety and effectiveness of DeepCatch is not biased toward a particular population, we evaluated DeepCatch performance for Americans by designing the same as performance tests for Koreans and French. The following data sets were collected from East River Medical Imaging to perform DeepCatch performance tests. 167 CT images were collected using GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS. The average age of the collected data patients was 67.2±12.8 and had a male-female ratio of 83:84. The racial distribution was 123 Whites, 30 Blacks or African American, 2 American Indian and Alaska native, and 12 Asians. As a result, for all anatomical structures, DSC mean was more than 90%, volume and area were less than 10%, less than 1%, and error measurements for GT to abdominal circumference were less than 5%.
3) Comparative Performance Test
The DeepCatch engineers conducted a Comparative Performance Test for segmentation and measurement functionalities in the software with predicate device.
- · Calculated quantitative results through DSC(Dice Similarity Coefficient).
- a) Comparative Performance Test with MEDIP PRO
The performance tests were performed on the proposed and predicate devices to evaluate automatic segmentation accuracy. 100 whole body CT images were collected using two models (Siemens and Healthineers) of scanners available in the United States. The patients whose images were collected had an average age of 51.9±13.2 and a male-female ratio of 40:60. All data used images independent of the images used to learn the algorithm. Ground truthing for each image was created by a licensed physician. The evaluation used the DICE similarity factor. The DSC value was calculated on the equivalent of the proposed device. In addition, an
{10}------------------------------------------------
independent sample t-test was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference between the derived DSC values. Results showed that the DSC of DeepCatch was not inferior to that of MEDIP PRO. DeepCatch showed no difference in performance evaluations performed with MEDIP PRO, and showed better performance than MEDIP PRO for Muscle segmentation.
b) Comparative Performance Test with Synapse 3D
The performance tests were performed on the proposed device and predicate device to evaluate the accuracy of the volume and proportion calculations of the body circumference, SF and AVF. 100 whole-body CT images independent of MEDIP PRO comparison tests were collected using scanner models (Siemens and Healthineers) available in the United States. The patients whose images were collected had an average age of 52.2±12.4 and a male-female ratio of 64:36. All data used images independent of the images used to learn the algorithm. Ground truthing for each image was created by a licensed physician. The evaluation calculated the volume, ratio, area, and body circumference for each area. The calculated values were compared with GT. Furthermore, an independent sample t-test was performed to determine whether there was a significant difference between the derived values. As a result, DeepCatch showed no difference in performance test compared to synapse 3D, and showed better performance than Synapse 3D in AVF Area (AW) and SF Area (AW).
-
- Cybersecurity
· "Content of Premarket Submission for Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices.", on October2. 2014
- Cybersecurity
9. Substantial Equivalence [21 CFR 807.92(b)(1) and 807.92]
There are no significant differences between the proposed device and the predicate devices, K191026 and K130542 that would adversely affect the use of the product. It is substantially equivalent to these devices in indications for use and technology characteristics.
10. Conclusion [21 CFR 807.92(b)(3)]
In according with the Federal Food & Drug and cosmetic Act, 21 CFR Part 807, and based on the information provided in this premarket notification, concludes that the DeepCatch is substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to the predicate device as described herein.
§ 892.2050 Medical image management and processing system.
(a)
Identification. A medical image management and processing system is a device that provides one or more capabilities relating to the review and digital processing of medical images for the purposes of interpretation by a trained practitioner of disease detection, diagnosis, or patient management. The software components may provide advanced or complex image processing functions for image manipulation, enhancement, or quantification that are intended for use in the interpretation and analysis of medical images. Advanced image manipulation functions may include image segmentation, multimodality image registration, or 3D visualization. Complex quantitative functions may include semi-automated measurements or time-series measurements.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls; voluntary standards—Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Std., Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) Std., Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) Test Pattern).