Search Results

The ECHOTECH 3D FreeScan system is indicated for acquisition of related sets of 2D ultrasound images and 3 dimensional reconstruction of diagnostic ultrasound images. It is intended to acquire, analyze, store and retrieve digital ultrasound images for computerized 3-dimensional image processing. It is an add-on accessory for existing ultrasound imaging systems, and is intended to record position and movement of ultrasound transducers for the systematic acquisition of 2 dimensional image slices throughout a volume of interest. It is intended as a general purpose digital 3D ultrasound image processing tool for cardiology, radiology, neurology, gastroenterology, urology, surgery, orthopedics, oncology, obstetrics and gynecology.

The EchoTech 3D FreeScan is a high performance computer system based on Intel motherboard and Microsoft DOS/Windows standards. It incorporates a commercially available image digitizer circuit board and proprietary software for the acquisition, analysis, storage and retrieval of digital 3D ultrasound image data sets. The device is an add-on accessory for any existing diagnostic imaging ultrasound system.

The device records ultrasound transducer spatial position in six degrees of freedom during use. Coordinate tracking is achieved with a miniature magnetic field sensor within a transmitted pulsed magnetic field. This is done by attaching a plastic holding plate to the probe of the host ultrasound system, to which the receiver of an electromagnetic sensor device is attached.

2D ultrasound images are acquired sequentially in a series of steps as the ultrasound transducer is swept across the patient scan site. The resulting set of digitized 2D images is then converted into a 3D data volume.

The provided text does not contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria, comprehensive study results, or the methodologies for establishing ground truth as requested in the prompt. The document is a 510(k) summary for the EchoTech 3D FreeScan, which primarily focuses on regulatory approval based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, I can extract the available information and highlight what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Missing Information: Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy, precision, speed, specific image quality metrics) are not provided. The performance is broadly stated as meeting "design intent" and "system performance specifications" without detailing what those specifications are.

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

Missing Information: The document does not specify the sample size used for the test set. It mentions "software testing and validation" and "additional system testing by a third party standards test house" but does not quantify the data used for these tests. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not mentioned.

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

Missing Information: The document does not describe the establishment of a "ground truth" for a test set, nor does it mention the involvement or qualifications of experts in this capacity. The testing appears to be internal validation against design specifications rather than clinical performance evaluation against expert-derived ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Missing Information: No adjudication method is mentioned or implied, as there is no description of a clinical test set requiring expert consensus.

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

Missing Information: The document does not describe an MRMC comparative effectiveness study. The device is presented as an "add-on accessory" for acquiring and reconstructing 3D ultrasound data, not as an AI-driven diagnostic aid for human readers. Therefore, there is no mention of an effect size related to human reader improvement with or without AI assistance.

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

Information Provided (Indirectly): The "Test Discussion" states that "Software testing and validation were done at the module and system level" and "Additional system testing was done by a third party standards test house." This suggests standalone testing of the algorithm (or software components) against its design specifications was performed.
Missing Information: The specific metrics and results of this standalone performance are not detailed beyond a general statement of compliance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Missing Information: The document does not specify a type of "ground truth" (e.g., pathology, outcomes data, expert consensus) as would be relevant for clinical performance evaluation. The testing described appears to be focused on validating the device's technical functionality and conformity to internal design specifications.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Missing Information: The document does not mention a training set. This device is described as an image acquisition, analysis, storage, and retrieval system for 3D ultrasound, not an AI/ML-based diagnostic algorithm that would typically require a training set.

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

Missing Information: As no training set is mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not applicable or discussed.

Ask a specific question about this device