Search Results

The DoseView 3D system is a 3 axis, water phantom scanning system intended to easily and accurately, measure and analyze pulsed photon and electron radiation from a linear acceleratedbased radiation therapy system or continuous radiation from a radioactive source-based radiotherapy system. This data is then often used in support of a radiation treatment planning system. It is comprised of a water tank, electrometer, radiation detector(s), motion controller, controlling software, master pendant and lift/reservoir cart. It is a prescription device intended to be used by a trained medical physicist. The general uses of the DoseView 3D include the following:

• Acceptance testing and/or commissioning of a radiation therapy or radiotherapy system.
• Quality assurance measurements to identify and minimize the sources of uncertainty and error in the radiation therapy system, radiotherapy system or radiation treatment planning system.
• Collection of dose depth data for radiation treatment planning system use.
• Completion of clinical dosimetry protocols and calibrations.

The DoseView 3D system is a 3-axis, water phantom scanning system intended to easily and accurately, measure and analyze pulsed photon and electron radiation from a linear accelerated based radiation therapy system or continuous radiation from a radioactive source-based radiotherapy system. This data is then often used in support of a radiation treatment plasot system. It is comprised of a water tank, electrometer, radiation detector(s), motion controller, controlling software, master pendant and lift/reservoir cart. It is a prescription device intended to be used by a trained medical physicist.

The DoseView 3D is a system designed for measuring and analyzing radiation from linear accelerators and radioactive sources, primarily used in radiation therapy for acceptance testing, quality assurance, dose data collection, and calibration.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding its acceptance criteria and the study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly detail a table of acceptance criteria with specific numerical targets. Instead, it states that:

It implies that the device successfully met the intended design, risk, and validation objectives.

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

The text does not specify a numerical "sample size" in the traditional statistical sense for a test set. Instead, it mentions that the DoseView 3D was "successfully evaluated by the following clinical beta sites":

• Turville Bay MRI & Radiation Oncology Center, Madison, WI
• UW Hospitals & Clinics, Madison, WI
• ATC/Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan

This indicates a prospective evaluation across three clinical sites located in the United States (Wisconsin) and Japan. The "test set" in this context would likely refer to the data collected and performance observed during its use at these sites.

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

The document states that the device "is intended to be used by a trained medical physicist." Therefore, it can be inferred that medical physicists at the clinical beta sites were the users and implicitly, the experts involved in establishing or validating the "ground truth" of the device's performance.

The number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience) is not explicitly stated in the provided text.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The text does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set. The evaluation seems to be based on the successful performance observed at the clinical beta sites.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, the provided text does not indicate that a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was performed. The focus is on the DoseView 3D's standalone performance and its compliance with standards and predeteremined specifications.

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

Yes, a standalone evaluation was performed. The text indicates that the device was "verified and validated at Standard Imaging" and "successfully evaluated by the following clinical beta sites." This implies that the device's performance was assessed directly, without necessarily comparing it to human performance in a comparative study format. The primary function of the DoseView 3D is to make measurements, so its "standalone" performance refers to its accuracy and reliability in those measurements.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for evaluating the DoseView 3D would likely be based on physical dosimetry standards and established clinical dosimetry protocols and calibrations. The device itself is designed to collect dose depth data and assist in calibration. Therefore, the "ground truth" would be the known and expected dose distributions and measurements based on established physics principles and measurement techniques, against which the DoseView 3D's readings were compared. The text explicitly mentions "Completion of clinical dosimetry protocols and calibrations" as one of its general uses, suggesting that its accuracy against these known standards would be the basis of "ground truth."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The provided text does not mention a training set or its sample size. The DoseView 3D is a measurement system, not a machine learning algorithm that typically requires a training set. Its development and validation would involve engineering verification and calibration rather than machine learning training.

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

As there is no mention of a training set, there is no information on how its ground truth was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

IMSure Brachy QA Software is a stand alone software application product intended for use as a quality assurance tool to verify brachytherapy treatment plans developed on a radiation therapy treatment planning system with the appropriate transfer format. It may also be used as a segregated standalone application in the IMSure QA Software suite of software products.

This product is intended for use by trained medical physicians, or dosimetrists. The calculation results must be evaluated by qualified personnel before a patient treatment. It is the responsibility of the medical physician or dosimetrist to determine whether the dosimetric accuracy is adequate for a particular patient.

Dose modeling of a source is based on the AAPM TG-43 formalism, and may be adjusted by a qualified user to match measured or published results. IMSure Brachy QA Software does not control any radiation delivery devices and does not allow the export of calculated information.

IMSure Brachy QA Software is a stand alone software application product intended for use as a quality assurance tool to verify brachytherapy treatment plans developed on a radiation therapy treatment planning system with the appropriate transfer format. It may also be used as a segregated standalone application in the IMSure QA Software suite of software products.

This product is intended for use by trained medical physicians, or dosimetrists. The calculation results must be evaluated by qualified personnel before a patient treatment. It is the responsibility of the medical physician or dosimetrist to determine whether the dosimetric accuracy is adequate for a particular patient.

IMSure Brachy QA Software independently computes a modeled dose that would be delivered by a high dosc rate (HDR) or low dose (LDR) brachytherapy system to a patient and compares it to the dose predicted by a primary treatment planning system. IMSure Brachy QA Software imports a file produced by a primary HDR or LDR treatment planning system (TPS), in the format of an industry standard Dicom-RT™ or vendor specific file, which contains information about a treatment. The files contain information about applicators or catheters and the associated source information in each catheter, such as source type, source strength, source location and source duration. The files may also contain information about specific calculation points and the dose predicted by the primary planning system, as well as patient specific information. The dose computation algorithm used is a superposition of point or line sources, incorporating 3-D geometrical features of the source construction, as well as radiological features of the source composition. Dosc modeling of a source is based on the AAPM TG-43 formalism, and may be adjusted by a qualified user to match measured or published results.

After importing a TPS plan, a user may edit the information, adding or modifying source positions, durations (or dwell times), type, or activity strength. Calculation point information may be edited as well. A 3-D view of the applicators, source positions, and calculation point positions is provided. A paper or electronic record can be stored including the final dose computation for each calculation point compared to the dose computed by the TPS, as well as relevant patient information for long term documentation. IMSure Brachy QA Software does not control any radiation delivery devices and does not allow the export of calculated information.

IMSure Brachy QA Software is provided to the customer on a CD. It requires the Microsoft Windows Operating System 2000 with service pack 2 or better, or XP. Computer system requirements include Pentium III or equivalent, a minimum of 256 MB RAM and 100 MB available hard drive space. Display requirements include 1024 x 768 minimum resolution and an OpenGL compatible video card meeting OpenGL 1.1 specifications.

The provided document does not contain explicit acceptance criteria in the form of a table or specific quantitative metrics with corresponding device performance values, nor does it detail a study designed to prove the device meets such criteria.

The document is a 510(k) summary for the Standard Imaging IMSure Brachy QA Software, primarily focusing on its purpose, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It describes functional areas addressed during verification and validation and lists beta sites for evaluation but does not provide details of a formal study with quantified performance data.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from this document.

Here's a breakdown of what can be gleaned and what is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

• Not available. The document states that "The Standard Imaging IMSure Brachy QA Software has met its predetermined design specifications, risk analysis and validation objectives." However, it does not specify what those design specifications, risk analysis objectives, or validation objectives are in a measurable way, nor does it present device performance data against them.

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

• Not available. The document mentions that the software was "successfully evaluated by the following beta sites:" and lists five hospitals. This suggests some form of testing, but it does not specify what constituted the "test set" (e.g., number of patient cases, treatment plans), its size, or the provenance of the data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

• Not available. While the software is intended for use by "trained medical physicians, or dosimetrists," and beta sites are listed, there is no information about experts establishing ground truth for a test set. The software's function is to independently calculate and compare doses, with the primary treatment planning system's output serving as a reference. The "ground truth" for the software itself relies on the AAPM TG-43 formalism and user adjustments to match measured or published results.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not available. No details about a formal test set, expert adjudication, or adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) are provided.

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

• Not applicable / Not available. The IMSure Brachy QA Software is a "Dose Validation Software" intended as a quality assurance tool to verify brachytherapy treatment plans. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic or decision-making tool for human readers in the context of image interpretation or treatment delivery. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study regarding human reader improvement with AI assistance is not relevant to this type of device and is not mentioned.

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

• Yes, implicitly. The device itself is described as a "stand alone software application product" that "independently computes a modeled dose." The validation and verification efforts described ("Installation", "Import Tool Module", "QA Module", "Source Library Module", "User Management Module", and various source types/settings) imply testing of the algorithm's performance in isolation, comparing its calculations to expected or reference values (e.g., based on AAPM TG-43 formalism, measured, or published results). However, no specific performance metrics like accuracy, precision, or deviation values are provided from these standalone tests.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• AAPM TG-43 formalism, measured or published results. The document states: "Dose modeling of a source is based on the AAPM TG-43 formalism, and may be adjusted by a qualified user to match measured or published results." This indicates that the "ground truth" or reference standard for the software's dose calculations is derived from established physics formalisms and potentially empirical data.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable / Not available. The IMSure Brachy QA Software is described as a software application that performs dose calculations based on specific formalisms (AAPM TG-43) and not as a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense of data-driven learning. Its development likely involved engineering, physics modeling, and traditional software testing, rather than a supervised learning paradigm.

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

• Not applicable / Not available. As the software does not appear to be an AI learning model that uses a "training set," this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Standard Imaging HDR 1000 Plus Well Chamber is a well-type chamber. It is specifically designed to measure the amount of radiation of brachytherapy sources, including high-dose-rate (HDR), low-dose-rate (LDR), intravascular (IVB) and electronic (x-ray) sources, with the appropriate calibration from an accredited dosimetry calibration laboratory. Sources must be measured using the appropriate and specific source holder as described in the labeling.

The Standard Imaging HDR 1000 Plus Well Chamber is a well-type chamber. It is specifically designed to measure the amount of radiation of brachytherapy sources, including high-dose-rate (HDR), low-dose-rate (LDR), intravascular (IVB) and electronic (x-ray) sources, with the appropriate calibration from an accredited dosimetry calibration laboratory. Sources must be measured using the appropriate and specific source holder as described in the labeling.

It is recommended that the chamber be calibrated every two years, as is standard practice for other ionization chambers. Initially, the calibration factor is given in the calibration report from an Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL).

The measurement of brachytherapy sources requires an electrometer with a calibrated scale for measuring currents in the range from 10-12 A to 10-7A. Alternatively, a calibrated charge scale may be used with timed runs. If integral charge techniques are used with the time determined by the HDR irradiator timer, the contribution from the source transit-time should be taken into account.

The HDR 1000 Plus Well Chamber has a vent hole to maintain the internal air at ambient atmospheric pressure. Thus, the readings obtained must be corrected for ambient temperature and pressure to the temperature and pressure of calibration (22º C and 760 mm Hg) at "normal" relative humidity (50% ± 25%non-condensing) in the usual accepted manner. The HDR 1000 Plus Well Chamber has available different inserts for IVB, HDR, LDR and x-ray measurements.

The HDR 1000 Plus Well Chamber has a conventional triax connector and cable to be connected to a suitable electrometer. A bias of 300 volts must be applied to the electrometer lowimpedance connection relative to chassis ground. The voltage polarity effect is less than 0.1%. If desired, a second bias level of 150 volts can also be used to determine the ionic recombination loss at 300 V.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Standard Imaging HDR 1000 Plus Well Chamber (modifications to):

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Important Note: The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in terms of specific performance thresholds (e.g., "accuracy ±X%", "precision ≤Y%"). Instead, it focuses on compliance with standards and substantial equivalence. The "reported device performance" is primarily descriptive of design features and a general statement of validation.

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

The provided text does not specify a sample size for a test set. There isn't a "test set" in the traditional sense of a dataset used to evaluate an AI model or a new medical device against a known ground truth.

The data provenance is related to calibration testing performed by the University of Wisconsin - Madison, Department of Medical Physics Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory. This implies a controlled, prospective experiment or series of measurements under specific laboratory conditions. The country of origin is the USA.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes a physical medical device (a well chamber) and its validation through calibration, not an AI or diagnostic system requiring expert interpretation of data for ground truth. The "ground truth" for this device would be established by the highly precise and traceable reference standards used by the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL), which are maintained by experts in dosimetry and metrology. While not explicitly numbered, the personnel at an ADCL are by definition highly qualified in radiation dosimetry.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3. Adjudication methods are typically used when subjective expert interpretation is involved in establishing ground truth for a diagnostic or AI system.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a measurement instrument for radiation, not an AI or diagnostic tool where human readers assess cases.

6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) Was Done

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical instrument, not an algorithm. Its operation involves a human user (a dosimetry professional) who connects it to an electrometer and performs measurements, then applies corrections.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the validation of the HDR 1000 Plus Well Chamber is based on traceable dosimetry standards and calibration processes maintained by an Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL). This involves highly accurate reference sources and measurement techniques, ensuring the device's readings are accurate relative to established physical units of radiation. It's essentially a type of "metrological ground truth" rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical instrument, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PIPSpro QA Software System displays, enhances and analyses portal images, and is used in conjunction with commercially available electronic portal imaging detectors (EPIDs). PIPSpro provides numerous measurement tools, image processing routines, statistical analysis and capabilities that are not available in the standard software provided by the EPID suppliers. These include the processing of simulator and portal verification images, analyzing patient registration errors, measuring of image quality from an EPID during installation tests, providing a platform for quality assurance programs in radiation therapy, and tools for writing and editing notes attached to images for easy communication. In this capacity, it can only import images and information.

PIPSpro QA Software System (Portal Imaging Processing System, professional version) is a stand-alone software program for use on PC computers running under Microsoft Windows 9x/Me/2000/NT/XP. The PC is not supplied with PIPSpro, and must be provided by the user. PIPSpro is supplied on a CD together with a software security key ("dongal" or hard lock) which is inserted into a parallel or USB port on the computer to allow the software to work. PIPSpro does not use, control, or operate any hardware, it is purely a stand-alone software program.

AQUA is also a stand-alone software program, consisting of a small part of the PIPSpro system. AQUA includes only those routines required for the analysis of images acquired with the QC-3 phantom, and used for quality control of electronic portal imaging devices

The PIPSpro OA Software System, which displays, enhances and analyses portal images, and is used in conjunction with commercially available electronic portal imaging detectors (EPIDs). PIPSpro provides numerous measurement tools, image processing routines, statistical analysis and capabilities that are not available in the standard software provided by the EPID suppliers. These include the processing of simulator and portal verification images, analyzing patient registration errors, measuring of image quality from an EPID during installation tests, providing a platform for quality assurance programs in radiation therapy, and tools for writing and editing notes attached to images for easy communication. In this capacity, it can only import images and information.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Information for the Standard Imaging PIPSpro QA Software System. It describes the software's functionality and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets those criteria with quantitative values.

The document states: "The Standard Imaging PIPSpro QA Software System has met its predetermined design specifications, risk analysis and validation objectives." It also mentions "nearly 10 years of evolving development and use" and lists validation activities such as "Algorithm and image transfer," "Results presentation and graphing," "Beta testing," "Interface, compatibility, use and misuse," and "Bug, Modification and/or Addition change testing." However, these are general statements about development and validation processes, not a detailed account of specific performance metrics or a study.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from this document.

Summary of missing information:

• Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: Not provided. The document states validation objectives were met, but does not list specific criteria or performance metrics.
• Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: Not provided.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth for the test set and qualifications: Not provided.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not provided.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not mentioned.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance study: Not detailed, although the software is described as "standalone."
• Type of ground truth used: Not specified.
• Sample size for the training set: Not provided.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The e.IMRT Calculator is a simple, stand-alone software program provided on a CD-rom for use on an appropriately configured personal computer. It is intended to assist the oncologist or medical physicist in creating an optimum electron treatment plan based on the treatment objective for the patient.

Using previously established mathematical equations, the e.IMRT Calculator suggests several potential electron beam treatment energy solutions, within user selected parameters, by combining several discrete energies typically available on the linear accelerator(s). It uses previously user gathered or generated depth dose data sets for each electron energy available (4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20 or 22 MeV) on the user's specific liner accelerator(s) as its primary input. Other inputs involve the identification of the facility, specific linear accelerator(s) and bolus used.

The output of the e.IMRT calculator is a hardcopy printout of the suggested electron beam treatment energies, in both numeric and graphical formats. The site, linear accelerator and bolus information are also provided on this printout are the site. The e.IMRT Calculator does not, however, electronically store any patient identification data or information. Inputs involving patient information are only used for hardcopy printouts.

Specific electron beam parameters are selected from the solution options provided by the e.IMRT Calculator for non-direct (manual) input into the user's radiation treatment planning system. The treatment planning system then creates a treatment plan based on the treatment objective for the patient, which is reviewed by the attending oncologist for acceptability prior to implementation with a linear accelerator.

The e IMRT Calculator is a simple, stand-alone software program provided on a CD-rom for use on an appropriately configured personal computer. It is intended to assist the oncologist or medical physicist in creating an optimum electron treatment plan based on the treatment objective for the patient.

Using previously established mathematical equations, the e.IMRT Calculator suggests several potential electron beam treatment energy solutions, within user selected parameters, by combining several discrete energies typically available on the linear accelerator(s). It uses previously user gathered or generated depth dose data sets for each electron energy available (4. 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20 or 22 MeV) on the user's specific liner accelerator(s) as its primary input. Other inputs involve the identification of the facility, specific linear accelerator(s) and bolus used.

The output of the e.IMRT calculator is a hardcopy printout of the suggested electron beam The butput of the c.HAN's numeric and graphical formats. The site, linear accelerator and bolus information are also provided on this printout are the site. The e.IMRT Calculator does not, however, electronically store any patient identification data or information. Inputs involving patient information are only used for hardcopy printouts.

Specific electron beam parameters are selected from the solution options provided by the e. IMRT Calculator for non-direct (manual) input into the user's radiation treatment planning system. The treatment planning system then creates a treatment plan based on the treatment objective for the patient, which is reviewed by the attending oncologist for acceptability prior to implementation with a linear accelerator.

The Standard Imaging e.IMRT Calculator is a software program designed to assist oncologists or medical physicists in creating optimal electron beam treatment plans. The device suggests potential electron beam treatment energy solutions by combining discrete energies available on linear accelerators, using previously established mathematical equations and user-provided depth dose data.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document describes a validation process rather than specific quantitative acceptance criteria with numerical targets. The acceptance criteria seem to be qualitative and related to the proper functioning and comparison against existing systems.

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

The document does not explicitly state a specific "test set" with a defined sample size in terms of patient cases or data points. The validation involved various aspects listed above. The provenance of the data used for depth dose measurements (input to the calculator) is stated as "previously user gathered or generated depth dose data sets for each electron energy available... on the user's specific linear accelerator(s)." This indicates the data provenance is user-generated/user-specific, likely retrospective in the sense that this data would have been collected prior to using the e.IMRT Calculator. The document does not specify countries of origin.

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

The document does not specify a number of experts used to establish ground truth for a test set. The validation process appears to be more focused on the computational aspects of the calculator and its comparison to existing systems and measured physical properties. While the e.IMRT Calculator is intended to assist oncologists or medical physicists, the document does not detail expert involvement in generating a ground truth for a validation study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method is described, as a formal test set requiring adjudication by multiple experts is not detailed for the validation process.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The device is a "calculator" to assist in treatment planning, not an AI for image interpretation that would typically require MRMC studies.

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

Yes, the validation implicitly includes standalone performance. The "Algorithm transfer," "Results presentation and graphing," and "Absolute dose depth measurements" evaluations focused on the calculator's inherent performance and accuracy of its outputs based on its algorithms and inputs. The "Treatment planning system comparison analysis" also speaks to its standalone calculation capabilities being compared.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for validation appears to be a combination of:

• Established mathematical equations: The device uses "previously established mathematical equations."
• User-generated/measured depth dose data: This data serves as the primary input and a basis for the calculations, presumably validated against physical measurements.
• Comparison to existing commercial systems: The device is "substantially equivalent to the electron portion of the ADAC Laboratories (Philips) Pinnacle 3 Radiation Therapy Planning Software," suggesting that Pinnacle 3's output might have served as a comparative ground truth or benchmark for the "treatment planning system comparison analysis."
• Empirical absolute dose depth measurements: These measurements would serve as a physical ground truth for calibrating and validating the dose calculation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The e.IMRT Calculator uses "previously established mathematical equations" and "user gathered or generated depth dose data sets." These depth dose data sets could be considered analogous to input data for its operations, but not a "training set" in a machine learning sense where the algorithm learns from the data.

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

As no "training set" (in the machine learning sense) is explicitly mentioned, the establishment of ground truth for such a set is not applicable. The underlying principles are based on conventional physics-based calculations using established equations and physical measurements for depth dose data.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Standard Imaging IVB 1000 Well Chamber is a well-type chamber. It is specifically designed to measure the amount of radiation of high-dose-rate (HDR), low-dose-rate (LDR) and intravascular (IVB) brachytherapy (gamma and beta) sources, with the appropriate (calibration from an accredited dosimetry calibration laboratory. Sources must be measured using the appropriate and specific source holder as described in the IVB 1000 labeling. To check the bremstralung component of a source, the X-Ray Contamination Test Tool, an accessory to the IVB 1000, should be used.

The Standard Imaging IVB 1000 Well Chamber is a well-type chamber. It is specifically designed to measure the amount of radiation of high-dose-rate (HDR), low-dose-rate (LDR) and intravascular (IVB) brachytherapy (gamma and beta) sources, with the appropriate calibration from an accredited dosimetry calibration laboratory. Sources must be measured using the appropriate and specific source holder as described in the IVB 1000 labeling. To check the bremstralung component of a source, the X-Ray Contamination Test Tool, an accessory to the IVB 1000, should be used. It is recommended that the chamber be calibrated every two years, as is standard practice for other ionization chambers. Initially, the calibration factor is given in the calibration report from an Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL). The measurement of brachytherapy sources requires an electrometer with a calibrated scale for measuring currents in the range from 10-12 A to 10-7A. Alternatively, a calibrated charge scale may be used with timed runs. If integral charge techniques are used with the time determined by the HDR irradiator timer, the contribution from the source transit-time should be taken into account. The IVB 1000 Well Chamber has a vent hole to maintain the internal air at ambient atmospheric pressure. Thus, the readings obtained must be corrected for ambient temperature and pressure to the temperature and pressure of calibration (22º C and 760 mm Hg) at "normal" relative humidity (50% ± 25%non-condensing) in the usual accepted manner. The IVB 1000 has available different inserts for IVB, HDR, LDR and X-Ray contamination measurements. The IVB 1000 Well Chamber has a conventional triax connector and cable to be connected to a suitable electrometer. A bias of 300 volts must be applied to the electrometer low-impedance connection relative to chassis ground. The voltage polarity effect is less than 0.1%. If desired, a second bias level of 150 volts can also be used to determine the ionic recombination loss at 300 V.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Standard Imaging IVB 1000 Well Chamber. This document establishes substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed acceptance criteria and a standalone study for the current device's performance.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, specific device performance, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, and MRMC studies is not present in this type of regulatory submission.

However, I can extract information related to the device's validation and the basis for its equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

This document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device.

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

Not applicable. There is no specific "test set" described for a standalone performance study. The validation mentioned is "calibration testing."

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 for a dosimeter is typically established through a highly calibrated and regulated process, not by a panel of medical experts in the way, for instance, image classification ground truth would be established. The calibration testing was conducted by an "Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory."

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

Not applicable. There is no expert adjudication method described for this type of device validation.

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 an ionization chamber for measuring radiation, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool that human readers would use.

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

The device itself is a standalone measurement instrument. The document states: "The Standard Imaging IVB 1000 Well Chamber has been validated through calibration testing conducted by the University of Wisconsin - Madison, Department of Medical Physics Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory." This implies a standalone evaluation of the device's accuracy in measuring radiation. However, no specific performance metrics from this testing are provided in this regulatory summary.

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

The "ground truth" in this context would be the highly accurate and traceable measurements provided by a primary or secondary standard dosimetry laboratory during the calibration process. The device's measurements are compared against these known, precise radiation values.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This is a physical measurement device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable.

Summary of what is known from the provided text:

• Device: Standard Imaging IVB 1000 Well Chamber.
• Purpose: To measure the amount of radiation from high-dose-rate (HDR), low-dose-rate (LDR), and intravascular (IVB) brachytherapy (gamma and beta) sources.
• Validation Method: "Calibration testing conducted by the University of Wisconsin - Madison, Department of Medical Physics Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory."
• Substantial Equivalence: The device is considered substantially equivalent to the Standard Imaging HDR 1000 Plus/ IVB 1000 Well Chambers (cleared under K001825) in "design concepts, technologies, materials and intended uses."
• Standards: Designed to comply with applicable portions of IEC 601-1:1988 and IEC 60731:1997.
• Operating Conditions: Readings must be corrected for ambient temperature and pressure (to 22ºC and 760 mm Hg at 50% ± 25% non-condensing humidity).
• Bias: Requires a bias of 300 volts, with a voltage polarity effect less than 0.1%.

Conclusion:

This 510(k) summary provides evidence of substantial equivalence to a predicate device and mentions calibration testing by an accredited laboratory as its validation. It does not contain the detailed quantitative performance metrics, acceptance criteria, or study design information typically found for novel device performance studies, especially those involving AI or human interpretation. The "study" here is the calibration process, which verifies the device's accuracy against recognized dosimetry standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device