Search Results

The Virtue software receives image data from medical scanning devices, such as CT or MRI, or from image archives and performs viewing, image manipulation, communication, printing and quantification of images.

The Diagnosoft Virtue is software that runs on Windows-based operating systems to view and analyze MR images of the heart in DICOM format.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Diagnosoft, Inc. Virtue device:

Based on the provided K111833 510(k) summary, the device Virtue is a software for viewing and analyzing MR images of the heart. The document does not contain specific acceptance criteria or details of a study that proves the device meets such criteria in terms of clinical performance or diagnostic accuracy. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for its intended use as a "Picture archiving and communications system" that performs viewing, image manipulation, communication, printing, and quantification of images.

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

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Information

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • The document does not provide any details about a test set, its sample size, or the provenance of any data used for testing.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience):

   • The document does not mention any test set, experts, or ground truth establishment.

3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

   • The document does not mention any test set or adjudication method.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • A MRMC study was not conducted or reported. The Virtue device is described as software for viewing and analysis, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool in the sense of providing an interpretation or assisting a reader in making a diagnosis beyond image manipulation and quantification.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

   • This document does not describe a standalone performance study. The device is a "Picture archiving and communications system" designed for human interaction.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

   • The document does not describe the use of any ground truth, as no clinical performance study for diagnostic accuracy is detailed.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not mention any training set, as it's not describing an AI/machine learning model in the context of diagnostic assistance.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • The document does not mention a training set or ground truth establishment for it.

Summary of what the document focuses on:

The K111833 submission for Diagnosoft, Inc. Virtue is a "traditional 510(k)" for a Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS) software. The evidence provided and accepted by the FDA for this type of device typically revolves around demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to existing legally marketed predicate devices in terms of:

• Intended Use: The Virtue's intended use is broad, covering viewing, image manipulation, communication, printing, and quantification of images from CT or MRI.
• Technological Characteristics: Its operational and fundamental characteristics are compared to predicate devices like the Philips Easy Vision Workstation and Harp 2.06.
• Safety and Effectiveness: The conclusion is that "any differences do not affect the product's safety or effectiveness." This often relies on software verification and validation activities (V&V) to ensure functions work as designed, adhere to software engineering best practices, and don't introduce new risks, rather than a clinical performance study with diagnostic endpoints.

Therefore, for this specific device and submission type, the absence of detailed clinical study performance data, acceptance criteria, and ground truth information is expected as it falls under a different regulatory pathway than novel diagnostic AI algorithms.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Diagnosoft, Inc. HARP 2.06 is a stand-alone software package which provides the capability to review, analyze, and report on magnetic resonance (MR) images. HARP can import images from an MR system and display them in a viewing area on the computer screen. Images can be organized and displayed by study and series and organized into three-dimensional and temporal (multi-phase) collections. Temporal sequences can be displayed in a cine mode to facilitate visualization.

Tagged MR images can be imported, displayed and analyzed. Available measurements include displacement, twist, and radial, circumferential, and principle strains. Tools are provided for display of regional motion properties of the heart.

A report interface is provided. Measurement tools provide information that can be output in standardized or specialized report formats. This interface makes it possible to quickly and reliably fill out a complete clinical report of an imaging exam. The results of the measurement tools are interpreted by the physician and can be communicated to referring physicians in supporting the determination of a diagnosis.

The Diagnosoft, Inc. HARP 2.06 is intended for the quantification of regional and global cardiac function from magnetic resonance images. It includes a user friendly implementation of the HARP methods for fast and reproducible measuring of myocardial motion and strain in the heart. With a friendly graphic user interface, users are able to analyze tagged MR images in minutes and produce many measurements including strain, torsion, and regional wall thickening.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Diagnosoft, Inc. HARP 2.06 device:

It is important to note that the provided text is a 510(k) summary and FDA clearance letter, which often do not contain the detailed performance study results that would be found in a full study report or scientific publication. Therefore, some of the requested information, particularly specific performance metrics and sample sizes for the test set, adjudication methods, and detailed ground truth establishment, is not explicitly stated in this document.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that "Testing of the modified Diangosoft, Inc. HARP 2.06 has demonstrated that the device fulfills prospective defined performance criteria and that the modified device meets the user needs." However, the document does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or a table of reported device performance values. It broadly states that the device's "performance specifications for the software characteristics performed by the HARP 2.06 are substantially equivalent to those of the HARP 1.1.0."

Study Information

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size: Not specified in the provided document.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified in the provided document. It does not mention the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not specified in the provided document.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not specified in the provided document.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned in the provided document. The device is a "stand-alone software package" intended for "quantification of regional and global cardiac function," and the results "are interpreted by the physician." The study focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate device rather than human-AI collaboration.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:

   • Yes, the performance testing described is for the device as a "stand-alone software package." The document states, "Testing of the modified Diangosoft, Inc. HARP 2.06 has demonstrated that the device fulfills prospective defined performance criteria." This implies a standalone evaluation of the algorithm's performance in generating measurements.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

   • Not explicitly stated. Given the context of "quantification of regional and global cardiac function," the ground truth for strain, displacement, and twist measurements would typically involve established, perhaps manually derived, measurements from the same tagged MR images, or potentially phantom studies with known motion. However, the document does not specify the exact method for establishing this ground truth.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not specified in the provided document. Training set information is typically not included in a 510(k) summary for this type of device, especially when it's an upgrade that focuses on demonstrating equivalence.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not specified in the provided document.

Summary of what is present and what is missing:

• The document clearly states that performance testing was conducted and that the device met pre-defined criteria and user needs, and is substantially equivalent to its predicate.
• It functions as a standalone software for quantification.
• Crucially, the document lacks specific quantitative details about the performance criteria, the results of the performance testing, the sample sizes of the test and training sets, the provenance of the data, the exact methodology for establishing ground truth, the number/qualifications of experts, or any MRMC studies. This level of detail is often summarized or omitted in the publicly available 510(k) summary but would be present in the full submission to the FDA.

Ask a specific question about this device

DIAGNOSOFT HARP is a stand-alone software package which provides the capability to review, analyze, and report on magnetic resonance (MR) images. HARP can import images from an MR system and display them in a viewing area on the computer screen. Images can be organized and displayed by study and series and organized into three-dimensional and temporal (multi-phase) collections. Temporal sequences can be displayed in a cine mode to facilitate visualization.

Tagged MR images can be imported, displayed, and analyzed. Available measurements include displacement, twist, and radial, circumferential, and principle strains. Tools are provided for display of regional motion properties of the heart.

A report interface is provided. Measurement tools provide information that can be output in standardized or specialized report formats. This interface makes it possible to quickly and reliably fill out a complete clinical report of an imaging exam. The results of the measurement tools are interpreted by the physician and can be communicated to referring physicians in supporting the determination of a diagnosis.

DIAGNOSOFT HARP is a stand-alone software package, designed for the Microsoft Windows operating system, providing the capability to import, display, and analyze magnetic resonance images of the heart. HARP imports DICOM images containing anatomical MRI, tagged MRI, perfusion MRI, or delayed enhancement MRI and is independent of the MR scanner manufacturer. HARP is intended to support clinicians in the diagnosis of heart disease.

The provided 510(k) summary for KOL 1368, Diagnosoft HARP, is lacking sufficient detail to fully answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and performance study specifics.

The document states: "A large body of literature exists describing the performance of HARP methods. Additional verification and validation tests were performed by Diagnosoft, Inc. to demonstrate that Diagnosoft HARP fulfills performance specifications." However, it does not provide the acceptance criteria used in these tests nor report the results of these specific tests.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It is not mentioned whether the data was from a specific country, or if it was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• MRMC Study: No, it was not done. The comparison provided (Table 2) is a side-by-side comparison of features between Diagnosoft HARP and the predicate device (Siemens Cardiac Tagging) rather than a comparative effectiveness study involving human readers. The document does not describe any study assessing the improvement of human readers with or without AI assistance.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

• Standalone Performance Study: Implied, but details are missing. The document states, "A large body of literature exists describing the performance of HARP methods. Additional verification and validation tests were performed by Diagnosoft, Inc. to demonstrate that Diagnosoft HARP fulfills performance specifications." This suggests standalone tests were performed, but the specific results, methodology, and acceptance criteria are not provided. The HARP device itself is described as "a stand-alone software package," meaning its core function is algorithm-driven analysis.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• Type of Ground Truth: Not specified.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not specified. The document mentions "A large body of literature exists describing the performance of HARP methods," which might imply that the underlying algorithms were trained on data from this literature, but specific training set details are absent.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not specified.

Summary of Limitations in the Provided Document:

The provided 510(k) summary is designed to establish substantial equivalence based on intended use, indications for use, principles of operation, and technology, rather than a detailed performance study report. It relies on existing literature for the performance of the underlying methods ("HARP methods") and a general statement that "additional verification and validation tests were performed...to demonstrate that Diagnosoft HARP fulfills performance specifications."

For a comprehensive answer to your questions about acceptance criteria and study specifics, a more detailed performance study report would be required, which is not present in this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device