Search Results

The CT Sim Laser System is used in the simulation stage of radiation therapy to prepare a patient for treatment. The lasers can be moved to a point that defines the isocenter in the CT suite. The Gammex CT Sim is intended to read laser positioning coordinates in a Gammex specified software format from a file in a shared folder. Typically the coordinates were calculated by a Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning System (RTPS) using CT images and sent to the Hospital Information System (HIS), Oncology System (OIS) or other system, by the RTPS.

The CT Sim Laser System allows the radiation oncologist, medical physicist and oncology technician to precisely mark a patient for radiation therapy. CT Sim provides the ability to move the lasers to particular coordinates for alignment/marking purposes on the patient. The coordinates that the lasers are to move to may be manually input through the software graphical user interface (GUI) or through a data file with a specific format (or DICOM). CT Sim is in no way integrated with the third party Radiation Therapy Treatment Planning System (RTPS) or imaging/radiological device. The primary technological characteristics of the CT Sim Laser System is usage of movable lasers, a handheld keypad, a power/control box, and a PC controller, which are operated by the CT Sim software to indicate isocenter in the CT suite.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in a quantitative manner.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for the "CT Sim Laser Alignment System." It states that the device has been bench tested and performs within its design specifications and equivalently to predicate devices. However, it does not provide:

• A table of specific quantitative acceptance criteria.
• Reported device performance values against those criteria.
• Information about sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance details, or ground truth establishment for either test or training sets.

The relevant section, "5 Performance Data and Comparison with Predicate" (page 5), only generically states: "The CT Sim Laser System has been tested using appropriate bench testing methods. Test results of the modified device have demonstrated that the device performs within its design specifications and equivalently to the predicate devices." This is a general statement of compliance, not a detailed report of a study with specific results.

Ask a specific question about this device

This device is intended to be used for precision measurement of ionizing radiation beams.

The PID-1 Precision Intelligent Dosimeter is a battery-powered, stand-alone, precision electrometer for the calibration of medical radiation beams. It is designed to accommodate different types of ionization chambers and solid state detectors. The PID-1 also incorporates features for logging and transferring measured data to a host computer for analysis. The PID-1 measures charge, charge rate (current), dose and dose rate. Time and date of measurement are automatically stored with the data. Temperature and pressure data can be entered for automatic correction of measurements.

The provided text describes a medical device, the PID-1 Precision Intelligent Dosimeter, and its comparison to a predicate device for regulatory approval (510(k)). However, the text does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, a study proving the device meets those criteria, or details regarding ground truth, expert involvement, or sample sizes typically associated with clinical performance studies of AI/ML-based devices.

The information provided focuses on the device's technical specifications and a comparison to a predicate device, as required for a 510(k) submission. It states: "Tests conducted on calibrated equipment indicate that the PID-1 will measure to the specifications stated in the product literature." This is a high-level statement and lacks the granular detail requested in the prompt for AI/ML device studies.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or provide detailed answers to most of your questions based on the input text. The device appears to be a hardware-based electrometer/dosimeter, not an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device, which typically require the types of studies you are asking about.

Here's what can be inferred or explicitly stated based on the provided text, and where information is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Missing Information (Not present in the provided text):

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in the context of this device type and the provided submission style. The tests involved calibrated equipment, not a "test set" of patient data or clinical samples.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a dosimeter is established by physical standards and calibrated reference equipment, not expert human interpretation.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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: Not applicable. This device is a measurement instrument, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a standalone measurement device, with "performance" related to its physical measurements, not an algorithm's output.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The "ground truth" for this device would be established by physical standards and reference measurements from calibrated equipment (e.g., primary standards dosimetry laboratories), not subjective expert opinion or clinical outcomes.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Conclusion:

The provided document describes a 510(k) submission for a hardware measurement device, an electrometer/dosimeter. The "study" mentioned is a statement that "Tests conducted on calibrated equipment indicate that the PID-1 will measure to the specifications stated in the product literature." This type of submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and meeting its own engineering specifications, rather than clinical performance studies with patient data, ground truth established by experts, or AI-specific validation methods that your questions primarily address.

Ask a specific question about this device