Search Results

Advantage Workstation 4.3 is a review station, which allows easy selection, review, processing and filming of multi-modality DICOM images from a variety of diagnostic imaging systems. When interpreted by a trained physician, filmed or displayed images on the AW monitor may be used as a basis for diagnosis, except in the case of mammography images.

AW 4.3 is a multi-modality review workstation. It includes one or two color flat panel monitors for image review. The workstation allows for easy review, post processing and filming of DICOM images from a variety of imaging systems. AW 4.3 combines AW 4.1 features with the 2D image display features of the Volume Viewer Plus software option.

The provided submission describes a medical device, the Advantage Workstation 4.3 (AW 4.3), which is a multi-modality review workstation. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices rather than presenting a detailed study with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics for the AW 4.3 itself.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them, as detailed in points 1 through 9 of your request, cannot be found in the provided text.

Explanation:

The document is a 510(k) summary for the AW 4.3. The core of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This typically means showing that the new device has the same intended use and the same technological characteristics as the predicate, or if there are different technological characteristics, that these do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.

In this context:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Point 1): The document doesn't provide specific numerical acceptance criteria for performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, speed, image quality benchmarks) for the AW 4.3, nor does it report the device's performance against such criteria. It states that the device "performs as well as devices currently on the market" and is "equivalent to those of Advantage Workstation 4.1 and Volume Viewer Plus," which implies equivalence to established performance without quantifying it.
• Study Details (Points 2-9): Since the submission focuses on substantial equivalence through comparison, it does not describe an independent study designed to establish performance metrics for the AW 4.3 with details on sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, or MRMC studies. The "study" here is more of a comparative analysis against predicate devices. The "Adverse Effects on Health" section mentions "Software Development, Validation and Verification Process to ensure performance to specifications," but these are general processes, not a specific performance study with quantifiable results.

The current document is a regulatory submission for premarket clearance based on substantial equivalence, not a clinical trial report or a detailed performance validation study report.

Ask a specific question about this device