Search Results

The ClearView Image Enhancement System is intended for use by a qualified technician or diagnostician to reduce speckle noise, enhance contrast, and transfer ultrasound images. The software provides a DICOM-compliant ClearViewHD-enhanced image along with the original ultrasound image interpretation by the trained physician.

The ClearViewHD image processing software reduces noise and enhances contrast of medical ultrasound images. The software is a Windows XP or higher, Windows Embedded, and DICOM-compatible platform that may be installed on a standalone PC, laptop, or tablet The software does not require any specialized hardware but the time to process an image will vary depending on the hardware specifications. ClearViewHD is based on a core noise reduction and contrast enhancement algorithm that uses novel statistical techniques to determine whether each pixel location is due to mostly noise or signal (tissue structure) and attenuates the regions due to noise while preserving and accentuating the regions due to tissue structure. The statistical method is based on the a priori knowledge that the ultrasound signal is sparse and compressive sampling theory can be used to reconstruct the signal with fewer samples than the Nyquist Rate specifies.

The Clear ViewHD image processing software is a DICOM node that accepts DICOM3.0 digital medical files from an ultrasound device or another DICOM source. ClearViewHD processes the image and returns the original and/or enhanced image to another DICOM node such as a specific PC/workstation or the PACS system. The ClearViewHD software is designed to be compatible with any of the DICOM-compliant medical devices distributed by various OEM vendors.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the ClearViewHD device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Note: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria thresholds. Instead, it implies that improvement in SNR and CNR, along with positive visual inspection, constitutes meeting the performance goals.

Study Information

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

• Test Set Sample Size: 10,000 simulated A-Scans (for SNR improvement). The number of previously collected clinical images used for CNR and visual inspection is not specified.
• Data Provenance: Bench testing on phantoms and previously collected clinical images. The country of origin is not specified, and it appears to be retrospective as it uses "previously collected clinical images."

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

• No information is provided regarding the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for the test set. The evaluation seems to rely on objective metrics (SNR, CNR) and general "visual inspection" by unnamed individuals.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not specified. The document only mentions "visual inspection" alongside objective metric measurements.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not reported. The study focuses on the standalone performance of the algorithm in enhancing images, not on human reader performance with or without AI assistance. The indication for use states the enhanced image assists in interpretation by a trained physician, but this is not scientifically measured in the provided summary.

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

• Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was done. The bench testing on phantoms and previously collected clinical images directly assesses the algorithm's ability to reduce noise and enhance contrast, independent of human interaction.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth for the quantitative metrics (SNR and CNR) appears to be derived from the simulated A-Scans and the original (unenhanced) clinical images, serving as a baseline for measuring improvement. For the visual inspection, the "ground truth" seems to be expert consensus on ideal image quality (less speckle, enhanced contrast).
• It's not pathology or outcomes data.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not specify the sample size used for the training set. It only mentions the "core noise reduction and contrast enhancement algorithm" is based on "novel statistical techniques" and "a priori knowledge."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

• The document does not specify how the ground truth for the training set was established. It describes the algorithm as using "novel statistical techniques" and "a priori knowledge" of ultrasound signal sparsity and compressive sampling theory, suggesting a model-driven approach rather than human-annotated ground truth for training.

Ask a specific question about this device