Search Results

The Aurora system is a medical tool intended for use by appropriately trained healthcare professionals to aid detecting, localizing, diagnosing of diseases and in the assessment of organ function for the evaluation of diseases, trauma, abnormalities, and disorders such as, but not limited to, cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders and cancer. The system output can also be used by the physician for staging and restaging of tumors; and planning, guiding, and monitoring therapy, including the nuclear medicine part of theragnostic procedures.

GEHC's Aurora is a SPECT-CT system that combines an all-purpose Nuclear Medicine imaging system and the commercially available Revolution Ascend system. It is intended for general purpose Nuclear Medicine imaging procedures as well as head, whole body, cardiac and vascular CT applications and CT-based corrections and anatomical localization of SPECT images. Aurora does not introduce any new Intended Use.

Aurora consists of two back-to-back gantries (i.e. one for the NM sub-system and another for the CT subsystem), patient table, power distribution unit (PDU), operator console with a computer for both the NM acquisition and SmartConsole software and another for the CT software, interconnecting cables, and associated accessories (e.g. NM collimator carts, cardiac trigger monitor, head holder). The CT sub-system main components include the CT gantry, PDU, and CT operator console. All components are from the commercially available GEHC Revolution Ascend CT system.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Aurora system's deep-learning Automatic Kidney Segmentation algorithm, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details for Deep-Learning Automatic Kidney Segmentation Algorithm

1. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:
* Sample Size: 70 planar NM renal studies.
* Data Provenance: Acquired using GEHC systems from:
* 2 hospitals in the United States
* 1 hospital in Europe
* Nature: Retrospective (the studies were "segregated, and not used in any stage of the algorithm development," implying they were pre-existing data).
* Diversity: Served a diverse patient population including a range of ethnicities and demographics, encompassing a range of dynamic renal clinical scenarios, detection technologies, collimators, tracers, scan parameters, and patient age.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
* Number of Experts for Bench Testing Ground Truth: One (1).
* Qualifications: "An experienced Nuclear Medicine physician."
* Number of Experts for Clinical Testing Evaluation: Three (3) qualified U.S. readers.
* Qualifications: "Qualified U.S. readers" (further specific qualifications like years of experience or board certification are not detailed).

3. Adjudication method for the test set:
* For Bench Testing Ground Truth: The ground truth contours were reviewed and confirmed by a single experienced Nuclear Medicine physician. This suggests a form of expert consensus, but without multiple experts, it's not a multi-expert adjudication like 2+1 or 3+1. It's best described as single expert confirmation.
* For Clinical Testing: The three qualified U.S. readers independently assessed the quality of segmentation using a 4-point Likert scale. There is no mention of an adjudication process among these three readers, implying their individual assessments contributed to the overall evaluation.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:
* No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with AI assistance vs. without AI assistance was not explicitly described.
* The clinical testing involved multiple readers evaluating the quality of the algorithm's segmentation itself, rather than assessing their own diagnostic performance with and without AI. The focus was on the utility and acceptability of the AI output for the readers.

5. Effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:
* This information is not provided as a comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly conducted. The study assessed the acceptability of the AI's output, not the improvement in human reader performance.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
* Yes, a standalone performance evaluation of the algorithm was done. This is described as "Bench Testing" where the algorithm's generated contours were compared directly against the ground truth (GT) contours using the DICE similarity score. The "clinical testing" involved human readers evaluating the AI output, but the bench testing was algorithm-only.

7. The type of ground truth used:
* Expert Consensus: The ground truth for the bench testing (GT contours) was established by an "experienced Nuclear Medicine physician." While only one physician is mentioned, it's considered an expert-derived ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:
* The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the training set of the deep learning algorithm. It only mentions that the 70 test studies "were segregated, and not used in any stage of the algorithm development," which implies they were distinct from the training data.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
* The document does not explicitly state how the ground truth for the training set was established. It is only mentioned for the test set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Aurora system is a medical tool intended for use by appropriately trained healthcare professionals to aid in detecting, localizing, diagnosing of diseases and in the assessment of organ function for the evaluation of diseases, trauma, abnormalities, and disorders such as, but not limited to, cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders and cancer. The system output can also be used by the physician for staging and restaging of tumors; and planning, guiding, and monitoring therapy, including the nuclear medicine part of theragnostic procedures.

· NM System: General Nuclear Medicine imaging procedures for detection of radioisotope tracer uptake in the patient body, using a variety of scanning modes supported by various acquisition types and imaging features designed to enhance image quality. The scanning modes include planar mode (Static, Multi-gated, Dynamic and Whole body) and tomographic mode (SPECT, Gated SPECT, Whole body SPECT), Imaging modes include single photon, multi-isotope, and multi-peak, with data stored in frame/list mode. The imaging-enhancement features include assortment of collimators, gating by physiological signals, and real-time automatic body contouring.

· CT System: produces Cross sectional images of the body by computer reconstruction of X-Ray transmission data taken at different angles and planes, including Axial, Cine, Helical (Volumetric), Cardiac, and Gated acquisitions. These images may be obtained with or without contrast. The CT system is indicated for head, whole body, cardiac and vascular X-Ray Computed Tomography applications.

· NM + CT System: Combined, hybrid SPECT and CT protocols, for CT-based SPECT attenuation corrected imaging as well as functional and anatomical mapping (localization, registration, and fusion).

The Aurora system may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, components and accessories. The system may include digital processing of data and images, including display, quality check, transfer, and processing, to produce images in a variety of trans-axial and reformatted planes. The images can also be post processed to obtain additional images, imaging planes, analysis results and uptake quantitation. The system may be used for patients of all ages.

GEHC's Aurora is a SPECT-CT system that combines an all-purpose Nuclear Medicine imaging system and the commercially available Revolution Ascend system. It is intended for general purpose Nuclear Medicine imaging procedures as well as head, whole body, cardiac and vascular CT applications and CT-based corrections and anatomical localization of SPECT images. Aurora does not introduce any new Intended Use.

Aurora consists of two back-to-back gantries (i.e. one for the NM sub-system and another for the CT subsystem), patient table, power distribution unit (PDU), operator console with a computer for both the NM acquisition and SmartConsole software and another for the CT software, interconnecting cables, and associated accessories (e.g. NM collimator carts, cardiac trigger monitor, head holder). The CT sub-system main components include the CT gantry, PDU, and CT operator console. All components are from the commercially available GEHC Revolution Ascend CT system. The CT gantry has been adapted for use with predicate device's NM portion. CT PDU, CT Console Keyboard and CT operator console are the same as in Revolution Ascend Plus.

The provided document does not contain details about specific acceptance criteria, a study proving device performance against those criteria, or the various methodological details requested regarding sample sizes, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone performance.

The document is a 510(k) summary for the Aurora system, indicating that it is a modification of a predicate device (Discovery NM/CT 670) and incorporates components from other cleared devices. The filing emphasizes that, due to the nature of these modifications (primarily replacing a 16-slice CT with a 64-slice CT and other workflow enhancements, while the NM system is largely carried over), clinical testing was deemed unnecessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

The document states:

• "Because the changes associated with Aurora do not change the Indications for Use from the predicate and reference devices, and represent equivalent technological characteristics, this type of change supports using scientific, established / standardized, engineering / physics-based performance testing, without inclusion of clinical images for determining substantial equivalence."
• "Given the above information and the type and scope of changes, particularly that the NM imaging component is identical to the predicate, and the CT component is the commercially available Revolution Ascend CT system, clinical images are not included in this submission. Clinical images are not needed to demonstrate substantial equivalence."

Instead of a clinical study, the submission relies on:

• Design control testing per their quality system (21CFR 820 and ISO 13485): including Risk Analysis, Required Reviews, Design Reviews, Testing on unit level (Module verification), Integration testing (System verification), Performance testing (Verification), Safety testing (Verification), Simulated use testing (Validation).
• Conformance to standards: IEC 60601-1 and its applicable Collateral and Particular Standards (IEC 60601-1-2, 60601-1-3, 60601-2-44), as well as performance testing per NEMA NU-1.
• Additional engineering bench testing (non-clinical testing): This was performed to support substantial equivalence, demonstrate performance, and substantiate product claims. Evaluated areas included applicability of cleared lesion detectability and dose/time reduction claims, quantitation accuracy, IQ performance with low dose CT for attenuation correction, and workflow.

Therefore, the requested information cannot be extracted from this document as a clinical validation study demonstrating performance against specific acceptance criteria with human-in-the-loop or standalone performance was not part of the submission for substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

Clarify DL is a deep learning-based image reconstruction method intended to reduce noise and improve image quality of Nuclear Medicine bone SPECT scintigraphy images. Clarify DL may be used for patients of all ages.

Clarify DL is a software-only device for the reconstruction of NM bone SPECT scintigraphy images obtained using supported GE HealthCare SPECT and SPECT-CT systems. Clarify DL is designed to reduce image noise while maintaining contrast to enable increased Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR) and Contrast Recovery Coefficient (CRC). Clarify DL is deployed within the software of the predicate Xeleris V Processing and Review System and StarGuide devices.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and the study conducted for Clarify DL, a deep learning-based image reconstruction method for Nuclear Medicine bone SPECT scintigraphy images.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criteria for Clarify DL revolve around its ability to reduce image noise while maintaining contrast, thereby improving image quality. The specific metrics assessed are:

The text explicitly states that "All readers attested that their assessments of Clarify DL demonstrated acceptable diagnostic results" for overall image quality, image resolution, and noise level. Furthermore, the additional engineering bench testing "substantiated all performance claims," including improvement in CNR and CRC.

Study Details

The evaluation of Clarify DL involved both non-clinical (bench) testing and clinical reader evaluation.

Clinical Reader Evaluation (Test Set):

1. Sample size used for the test set: The text mentions "clinical bone SPECT and SPECT-CT exams obtained using supported SPECT CT systems" from "11 hospitals." The exact number of exams (cases) used for the test set is not specified.
2. Data provenance: The clinical exams came from "11 hospitals, including 5 US hospitals from 4 different states (i.e Ohio, Kansas, Rhode Island, and California) and 6 non-US hospitals from Europe and Asia." This indicates a prospective or retrospective collection of real-world clinical data from a diverse geographical range. The studies are described as "clinical bone SPECT and SPECT-CT exams."
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications: The clinical reader evaluation involved "expert NM physicians" but the number of experts is not specified. Their qualifications are given as "expert NM physicians." No specific years of experience are provided.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: The text states, "The clinical reader evaluation included review by expert NM physicians to assess overall Image Quality, Image Resolution, and Noise Level. The results of the clinical reader evaluation support the determination of substantial equivalence. All readers attested that their assessments of Clarify DL demonstrated acceptable diagnostic results." This implies a consensus or individual assessment model, but a specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is not explicitly mentioned. Given that "all readers attested," it suggests a strong agreement or individual positive assessments were sufficient.
5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: The text does not explicitly state that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done to compare human readers with and without AI assistance. The clinical reader evaluation assessed the Clarify DL images directly.
6. Standalone (algorithm-only without human-in-the-loop performance): Yes, standalone performance was evaluated through "additional engineering bench testing". This included image-level metrics (SSIM, MSE, PSNR) and lesion-level metrics (CNR, CRC) to quantitatively assess the algorithm's performance independent of human interpretation.
7. Type of ground truth used: For the clinical reader evaluation, the ground truth was expert consensus/interpretation by "expert NM physicians" regarding image quality, resolution, and noise level. For the bench testing, the "ground truth" implicitly referred to a reference image or quantitative metric against which the performance improvements (e.g., noise reduction, contrast enhancement) of Clarify DL were measured.
8. Sample size for the training set: The text does not specify the sample size for the training set used for the deep learning model.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: The text does not explicitly describe how the ground truth for the training set was established. It only states that Clarify DL uses an "OSEM-based Iterative Image Reconstruction with integrated deep learning model trained to reduce noise."

Ask a specific question about this device

The GE Omni Legend is a PET/CT system for producing attenuation corrected PET images. It is intended to be used by qualified health care professionals for imaging the distribution and localization of any positron-emitting radiopharmaceutical in a patient, for the assessment of metabolic (molecular) and physiologic function in patients, with a wide range of sizes and extent of disease, of all ages.

Omni Legend is intended to image the whole body, head, heart, brain, lung, breast, bone, the gastrointestinal and lymphatic systems, and other organs. The images produced by the system may be used by physicians to aid in radiotherapy treatment planning. therapy quidance and monitoring. and in interventional radiology procedures. The images may also be used for precise functional and anatomical mapping (localization, registration, and fusion).

When used with radiopharmaceuticals approved by the regulatory authority in the country of use, the raw and image data is an aid in; detection, localization, diagnosis, staging, restaging, monitoring, and/or follow up, of abnormalities, lesions, tumors, inflammation, organ function, disorders, and/or disease, such as, but not limited to, those in oncology, cardiology, and neurology.

Examples of which are: Cardiology:

• · Cardiovascular disease
• · Myocardial perfusion
• · Myocardial viability
• · Cardiac inflammation
• · Coronary artery disease

Neurology:

• · Epilepsy
  · Dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease, Lewy body dementia, Parkinson's disease with dementia, and frontotemporal dementia

· Movement disorders, such as Parkinson's and Huntington's disease

• · Tumors
• · Inflammation
• · Cerebrovascular disease such as acute stroke, chronic and acute ischemia
• · Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
• Oncology/Cancer:
• · Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
• · Small Cell Lung Cancer
• · Breast Cancer
• · Prostate Cancer
• · Hodgkin disease
• · Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• · Colorectal Cancer
• · Melanoma

Omni Legend is also intended for stand-alone, diagnostic CT imaging in accordance with the standalone CT system's cleared indications for use.

GE HealthCare's subject Omni Legend device, same as the unmodified predicate device, is a hybrid digital PET/CT diagnostic imaging system combining a GEHC Positron Emission Tomography (PET) System and a current production diagnostic GEHC Computed Tomography (CT) System. The proposed Omni Legend is a conventional, general-purpose PET/CT system using existing technological characteristics with identical Intended Use and Indications for Use as its predicate.

Omni Legend is made available with a "6 Ring", "4 Ring" configuration of its PET detector that correspondent provide an AFOV of 32 cm, 21cm, 16 cm. Omni Legend's major components include PET gantry / detector, GEHC commercially available Revolution Maxima CT system (K192686), patient table, operator console / workspace, computing hardware, power distribution unit, system software, and image reconstruction software. The operator console and system software control image acquisition and reconstruction, image display and post processing analysis, protocol and patient management, CT dose display, networking, filming, etc.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study information for the GE Omni Legend device, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantifiable, pass/fail format for the clinical reader study. However, it does specify types of evaluations and the general outcome.

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: The document states that the clinical reader study used "a clinically representative sample for evaluating the performance of Omni Legend's Enhanced AC option." However, the specific number of cases or patient exams in this test set is not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "PET/CT exams acquired on Omni Legend," implying prospective acquisition on the device, but does not specify the country of origin. It also doesn't explicitly state whether the data was retrospective or prospective, though "acquired on Omni Legend" suggests prospective collection for the study.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Number of Experts: The clinical reader study involved "NM physicians." The specific number of physicians is not provided.
• Qualifications of Experts: The experts were identified as "NM physicians" (Nuclear Medicine physicians). No further details on their years of experience or board certifications are given.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method for the clinical reader study. It states that "Each image was read by NM physicians who provided an assessment of overall diagnostic image quality... as well as the ability of Enhanced AC to correct artifacts." This suggests individual assessments rather than a consensus or adjudicated ground truth process involving the readers themselves.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• The document describes a clinical reader study but does not explicitly state that it was an MRMC comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with AI vs. without AI assistance. The study primarily focused on evaluating the "Enhanced AC" software option, with readers assessing diagnostic image quality and artifact correction.
• Effect Size: As it wasn't explicitly an MRMC study designed to measure human improvement with AI assistance, no effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance is reported. The study's conclusion is about the acceptability of the device's enhanced features.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

The document does not explicitly describe a standalone (algorithm only, without human-in-the-loop) performance study for the "Enhanced AC" option. The clinical study involved human readers assessing the images produced by the system (which includes the Enhanced AC), but it wasn't an isolated evaluation of the algorithm's output without human interpretation. The non-clinical testing included "qualitative and quantitative evaluation of PET images corrected with Enhanced AC, including demonstration of improvement in lesion quantitation," which could be considered a form of standalone evaluation, but it's not a clinical performance study.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For the clinical reader study, the ground truth was based on the expert assessment/consensus of NM physicians regarding the "overall diagnostic image quality" and the "ability of Enhanced AC to correct artifacts" and whether these assessments demonstrated "acceptable diagnostic results." It is not explicitly stated if pathology, outcomes data, or another objective measure was used to establish ground truth for this specific reader study. For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" would be established by physical measurements and phantom studies comparing results against known values as per NEMA standards.

8. Sample Size for Training Set

The document does not provide any information regarding the sample size used for training the algorithms (e.g., "Enhanced AC" or "Precision DL").

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established

The document does not provide any information on how the ground truth for any training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for use by a qualified physician for ultrasound evaluation of Fetal/Obstetrics; Abdominal (Including Renal & Gyn); Pediatric; Small Organ (breast, testes, thyroid); Neonatal Cephalic; Cardiac (adult and pediatrics); Peripheral Vascular (PV); Musculo-skeletal Conventional; Urology (including prostate) and Transesophageal.

The Vivid S60/S70 is a Track 3 diagnostic ultrasound system, which is primarily intended for echocardiography imaging and analysis, with additional capability in vascular and general ultrasound imaging. The Vivid S60/S70 incorporates a variety of electronic array transducers that provide digital acquisition, processing and display capabilities, and operate in linear, curved linear, sector/ phased array format or matrix array format, including CW transducer and a real time 3D transducer. Vivid S60/S70 consists of a mobile console approximately 56 cm wide 77 cm deep and 120 cm high, and includes multiple electronic array transducers that provide digital acquisition, processing and display capabilities. The user interface includes a variable height rotatable, user control panel with specialized controls, a 19-inch wide screen LCD display and a separate 12.1-inch touch panel with a resolution of 1280x800 with multi-touch capabilities.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the GE Vivid S60/S70 Diagnostic Ultrasound System. This type of submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than establishing de novo safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials. Therefore, the information typically requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria will not be present in the same way as for a novel device.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document, addressing the requested information where applicable:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Since this is a 510(k) submission for substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly that the new device performs as safely and effectively as the predicate devices and shares similar technological characteristics and indications for use. There are no specific quantitative performance metrics provided as "acceptance criteria" in the sense of a novel device proving its effectiveness against a particular target. Instead, the performance is assessed by comparison to predicates.

The "reported device performance" is the statement of substantial equivalence to the predicate devices across various features and clinical applications.

Note: The tables in the document listing "N" for new indications, "P" for previously cleared, and "E" for added under appendix E show expansion of indications for different transducers compared to specific predicate clearances. The overall summary (Page 14) states the Vivid S60/S70 intended use is consistent with a range of applications, indicating a broad equivalence to multiple predicate devices.

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

No clinical test set was used for this 510(k) submission. The document explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, Vivid S60/S70, did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." (Page 17)

Data provenance for non-clinical tests would refer to the standards and engineering tests mentioned.

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

Not applicable. As no clinical studies were required, no ground truth was established by experts for a test set in this submission. The "ground truth" for a 510(k) is effectively the established performance and safety of the predicate devices.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. No clinical test set.

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 diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This is a hardware diagnostic ultrasound system, not a standalone algorithm.

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

For this 510(k) submission, the "ground truth" is the performance of the predicate devices, which have already been deemed safe and effective by the FDA. The submission demonstrates that the new device performs equivalently based on non-clinical engineering tests and comparison of technical specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a standard diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI/machine learning device that would require a training set.

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

Not applicable. This device is a standard diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI/machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Discovery NM 750b Gamma Camera is intended to measure and image the distribution of selected single photon emission radioisotopes in the human body to aid in the evaluation of lesions. The resultant images are intended to be reviewed by qualified medical professionals. The Discovery NM 750b Gamma Camera is intended for diagnostic imaging of the breast and other small body parts. The Discovery NM 750b Gamma Camera when used for breast imaging is intended as an adjunct to mammography or other breast imaging modalities (it is not intended for primary screening of the population). The Discovery NM 750b Gamma Camera is indicated for planar and dynamic planar scintigraphy in the energy range 80-200keV for the detection and display of radioisotope tracer uptake in patients of all ages.

The Discovery NM 750b is a device intended to image the distribution of radionuclides in the body by means of a photon radiation detector. The device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, and accessories. The Discovery NM 750b is a high performance and compact planar nuclear imaging system, available in a dual head configuration or a single head configuration. This system is intended to measure and image the distribution of selected single photon emission radioisotopes in the breast and other small body parts in order to aid in the evaluation of lesions.

This 510(k) summary explicitly states that no clinical studies were submitted to support the substantial equivalence determination for the Discovery NM 750b. Therefore, there is no information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets them in the provided text.

Specifically, the document states:

"Clinical Tests Submitted The 510(k) application does not contain information from GEHC sponsored clinical studies as provided for under 21CFR 54.2(e), and therefore does not require Clinical trials data."

Instead, substantial equivalence was determined based on:
"The proposed device has undergone bench testing that was designed to simulate clinical factors."

As such, I cannot provide the requested information from the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for use by a qualified physician for ultrasound evaluation of Fetal; Abdominal; Pediatric; Small Organ (breast, testes, thyroid); Neonatal Cephalic; Adult Cephalic; Cardiac (adult and pediatric); Peripheral Vascular; Musculo-skeletal Conventional and Superficial; Urology (including prostate); Transesophageal; Transrectal; Transvaginal; Intraoperative (abdominal, thoracic, and vascular), Intra-cardiac and Intra-luminal.

The GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q is compact and portable diagnostic ultrasound system with integrated keyboard, fold-up LCD type display and interchangeable electronic-array transducers. It has an overall size approximately 36 cm wide, 31.5 cm deep and 6 cm high in transport configuration and provides digital acquisition, processing and display capability. The user interface includes a computer keyboard, an intuitive layout of specialized controls, color GUI display and Doppler audio.

The GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a compact and portable diagnostic ultrasound system.

Here's an analysis of the provided information, addressing your requested criteria:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a premarket notification, seeking substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It primarily focuses on demonstrating that the modified device (GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q BT10) is as safe and effective as the previously cleared version (GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q BT09) and other cleared GE Ultrasound systems, and also to clear new transducers for specific indications. As such, it does not present a table of specific acceptance criteria (e.g., performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) that were met by the device itself in a typical clinical study, nor does it report numerical device performance against such criteria.

Instead, the acceptance criteria are implicitly related to:

• Safety and Effectiveness: The device being "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices in terms of safety and effectiveness.
• Conformance to Standards: Adherence to applicable medical device safety standards.
• Intended Uses: The modified device performing its stated indications for use reliably.

The document asserts that these criteria have been met through non-clinical tests and a comparison with the predicate.

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

No specific test set or clinical data (sample size, data provenance) is mentioned for evaluating the performance of the GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q BT10 system itself beyond the non-clinical tests. The submission states "Clinical Tests: None required."

For the new transducers (8C-RS, 4C-RS, SoundStar 3D 10F, AcuNav™ 8F), the document lists new indications for use that are "N = new indication (previously cleared by FDA...)" on other existing and cleared devices (GE LOGIQ Book K032477, Vivid 7 K051449, stand-alone devices K070242 by Biosense Webster, Inc., and K071234 by Siemens Medical Solutions). This implies that the safety and effectiveness for these indications with these transducers have been established in previous clearance processes and are being leveraged for this new comprehensive system. However, specific test set sizes or data provenance for these previous clearances are not detailed in this document.

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

Not applicable, as no dedicated clinical test set with ground truth establishment is described for this submission. The "Clinical Tests: None required" statement implies that existing knowledge and previous clearances were sufficient.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable, as no dedicated clinical test set with adjudication is described.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The submission relies on substantial equivalence and "Clinical Tests: None required."

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance)

The device is a diagnostic ultrasound system, not an algorithm-only device. Therefore, a standalone performance study in the context of an AI algorithm is not applicable. The device's performance is intrinsically linked to its use by a qualified physician.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

Not explicitly stated for this particular submission, as "Clinical Tests: None required." For the previously cleared devices supporting the new indications for the transducers, ground truth would have been established through standard medical practices (e.g., expert clinical diagnosis, other imaging modalities, pathology, or surgical findings).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This document pertains to the clearance of a medical device (ultrasound system) and not the submission of an AI/ML algorithm that would typically involve a separate training set. The device's functionality is based on established ultrasound physics and signal processing, not a trained AI model in the modern sense.

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

Not applicable, as there is no mention of an AI/ML training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for use by a qualified physician for ultrasound evaluation of Fetal/Obstetrics; Abdominal/GYN; Pediatric; Small Organ (breast, testes, thyroid); Neonatal Cephalic; Adult Cephalic; Cardiac (adult and pediatric); Peripheral Vascular; Musculo-skeletal Conventional and Superficial; Urology (including prostate); Transesophageal; Transvaginal; and Intraoperative (abdominal, thoracic, and vascular).

The GE Vivid S6 are mobile ultrasound consoles having a wide assortment of electronic array transducers intended primarily for echocardiography with additional capability in vascular and general ultrasound imaging. Its intuitive user interface, high level of autooptimization along with significantly reduced size and weight maneuverable, efficient and easy to use.

The provided document K092079 is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the GE Vivid S5 and Vivid S6 Diagnostic Ultrasound System. This submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device and introducing new transducers and extended indications for use.

Crucially, the document states "Clinical Tests: None required." (Section b) 2. of Attachment B). This indicates that a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria, in the traditional sense of a clinical trial with performance metrics and statistical analysis, was not performed. Instead, the submission relies on the concept of substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device (GE Vivid S5 and Vivid S6 Diagnostic Ultrasound System, K071985), and other previously cleared GE ultrasound systems/transducers for the new indications.

Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from this document: acceptance criteria with reported device performance (beyond established safety standards), sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study details, standalone performance, or training set details.

The acceptance criteria for this submission are fundamentally satisfied by demonstrating that the modifications (new transducers and expanded indications for use) do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness and perform as well as or better than legally marketed predicate devices.

Here's a breakdown of the available information relevant to "acceptance criteria" and how they were met in the context of a 510(k) submission focused on substantial equivalence:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria is the 510(k) submission itself, where GE Healthcare argues for substantial equivalence based on the points above.

Missing Information (as per the document):

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable, as no clinical tests were required or performed.
3. 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): Not applicable. The "ground truth" here is the regulatory precedent of previously cleared devices and transducers.
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 diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The "ground truth" for the new indications is the precedent of prior FDA clearance for similar technologies and applications on other GE ultrasound systems, signifying recognized safety and effectiveness.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as no clinical tests or algorithm training were explicitly mentioned as part of this 510(k) submission for new device clearance. The device is a hardware/software system, not a machine learning model requiring a training set in the typical sense.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for use by a qualified physician for ultrasound evaluation of Fetal; Abdominal; Pediatric; Small Organ (breast, testes, thyroid); Neonatal Cephalic; Adult Cephalic; Cardiac (adult and pediatric); Peripheral Vascular; Musculo-skeletal Conventional and Superficial; Urology (including prostate); Transesophageal; Transvaginal; Intraoperative (obdominal, thoracic, and vascular), Intra-cardiac and Inra-luminal.

The GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q is compact and portable diagnostic ultrasound system with integrated keyboard, fold-up LCD type display and interchangeable electronic-array transancess. It has an overall size approximately 36 cm wide, 31.5 cm deep and 6 cm high in transport configuration and provides digital acquisition, processing and display capability. The user interface includes a computer keyboard, an intuitive layout of specialized controls, color GUI display and Doppler audio.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q Diagnostic Ultrasound System.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q Diagnostic Ultrasound System (K082374)

Based on the provided document, the GE Vivid-i and Vivid-q Diagnostic Ultrasound System's acceptance criteria and proof of their being met are primarily based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device and compliance with recognized safety and quality standards, rather than a clinical performance study with specific quantitative acceptance criteria or statistical measures of device performance.

The document states: "The modified GE Vivid-i is of a comparable type and substantially equivalent to the currently marketed GE Vivid-i. It is a compact and readily portable unit having the same design, construction, and materials; is comparable in key safety and effectiveness features. It has the same intended uses as the predicate device and additional software features are identical to that of other cleared GE Ultrasound systems."

And under "Conclusion": "Intended uses and other key features are consistent with traditional clinical practice, FDA guidelines, and established methods of patient examination. The design and development process of the manufacturer conforms with 21 CFR 820, ISO 9001 and ISO13485 quality systems. The device conforms to applicable medical device safety standards and compliance is verified through independent evaluation with ongoing factory surveillance. Diagnostic ultrasound has accumulated a long history of safe and effective performance. Therefore, it is the opinion of GE Medical Systems that the GE Vivid-i and Vivid -d Diagnostic Ultrasound is substantially equivalent with respect to safety and effectiveness to devices currently cleared for market."

Furthermore, it explicitly states under "Clinical Tests: None required."

Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" here are framed around demonstrating equivalence to existing, legally marketed devices and adherence to established regulatory and engineering standards.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that no specific quantitative performance metrics from a clinical study are reported, the table reflects the qualitative acceptance criteria related to substantial equivalence and safety/quality standards.

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

• Sample Size for the Test Set: Not applicable. No clinical test set or study validating specific performance metrics (like sensitivity/specificity) was conducted. The clearance is based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device and adherence to manufacturing and safety standards.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable for a performance test set. The predicate device (GE Vivid-i Ultrasound System, K061525) and other cleared GE Ultrasound systems provide the basis for equivalence.

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

• Not applicable. No new clinical trials or studies requiring ground truth establishment by experts for specific diagnostic performance were conducted for this 510(k) submission. The safety and effectiveness are inferred from the predicate device and the known history of diagnostic ultrasound.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. No performance test set requiring adjudication was conducted.

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

• No. This submission does not involve AI. The device is a diagnostic ultrasound system.

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

• No. This submission does not involve an algorithm. The device is a diagnostic ultrasound system.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Not applicable. No new clinical performance data requiring ground truth was generated. The approval relies on the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate device and the general class of diagnostic ultrasound systems.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve a machine learning algorithm or AI that would require a training set.

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

• Not applicable. This submission does not involve a machine learning algorithm or AI that would require a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device