Search Results

Canon Laser Blood Flowmeter CLBF model 100 is intended for use in observing patient's fundus (retina) with the information of blood flow (velocity) in a retinal vessel. The information of blood flow is also obtained by CLBF model 100, and it is intended to help doctors' reading of retinal images.

The Canon Laser Blood Flowmeter (CLBF) Model 100 allows for fundus observation with velocity measurement of retinal blood flow.

The provided text does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study proving the device meets those criteria. However, it does highlight that a published clinical study was included to support a claim of substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Based on the available information, here's an attempt to answer your questions, with significant limitations due to the lack of explicit detail:

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

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria or provide a table of performance metrics against such criteria. The closest information is a comparison between the proposed device (Canon Laser Blood Flowmeter CLBF Model 100) and its predicate device (Heidelberg Retina Flowmeter). This comparison focuses on technical specifications and intended use rather than specific a priori acceptance criteria for performance.

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

The document mentions "A published clinical study was included to support a claim of substantial equivalence." However, it does not provide any details regarding:

• The sample size of patients or images in this clinical study.
• The country of origin of the data.
• Whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

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)

This information is not provided in the document. The nature of "blood flow information" provided by the device (velocity, flow rate, vessel diameter, time variation) suggests that ground truth would likely involve direct measurement techniques or other validated methods, rather than expert interpretation of images for initial validation. However, the document states the device "is intended to help doctor's reading of retinal images," implying some level of clinical assessment. Without details of the clinical study, the role of experts in establishing ground truth is unknown.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

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

The document does not indicate that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was conducted. The claim of "substantial equivalence" is based on comparing the device's technical characteristics and intended use to a predicate device, and a "published clinical study" without further detail. There's no mention of AI assistance or human reader improvement.

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

The device is a "Canon Laser Blood Flowmeter CLBF Model 100" which performs "fundus observation with velocity measurement of retinal blood flow." Its output includes numerical values for velocity, flow rate, and vessel diameter, and graphical representations of time variation. The document states "The information of blood flow is also obtained by CLBF Model 100, and it is intended to help doctor's reading of retinal images." This implies the device provides quantitative measurements directly; it is not described as an "AI algorithm" in the modern sense that processes images for interpretation by humans. Therefore, the concept of "standalone performance" for an AI algorithm for diagnosis or detection doesn't directly apply here. The device itself is a measurement tool, and its "standalone performance" would relate to the accuracy and precision of its blood flow measurements. The document does not provide such detailed performance data.

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

The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth. Given the nature of a blood flowmeter, ground truth for its measurements (velocity, flow rate) would most likely come from:

• Direct physical measurements in controlled settings.
• Comparison to other established, validated blood flow measurement techniques (if applicable for retinal vessels).
• Clinical correlation with known physiological states or conditions related to blood flow (e.g., changes in flow in response to stimuli or in disease states).

The mention of a "published clinical study" suggests that some form of clinical validation or comparison was performed.

8. The sample size for the training set

The device is a measurement system (Laser Blood Flowmeter) and not described as an AI/machine learning model in the modern sense that requires a "training set" of data to learn from. Therefore, the concept of a training set sample size is not applicable to the information provided.

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

As there is no mention of a "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning model, this question is not applicable based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device