Search Results

The primary intended use of this device is to create hard copy prints or transparencies of medical images acquired from computer networks typically used in a medical environment.

Device Description

Codonics NP-1600M and NP-1600MD Medical Color Printer produces continuous photographic quality hard copies of electronically created or stored images.

AI/ML Overview

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and the supporting study, structured according to your requested information.

It's important to note that the provided text is a summary statement for a 510(k) submission from 1996 for a medical printer. As such, the concept of "AI" and many of the modern rigorous validation methodologies for AI-powered devices (like deep learning models) were not prevalent or even conceived of in their current form. The document focuses on the printer's performance, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, many of your requested points related to AI/algorithm validation cannot be addressed directly from this text.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Codonics NP-1600M and NP-1600MD Medical Color Printer

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria Category	Specific Criteria	Reported Device Performance
General Safety	Device labeling contains instructions for use, indications for use, and cautions.	The device labeling contains instructions for use, indications for use, and cautions as applicable.
Electrical Safety	Hardware components have UL, CUL (CSA equivalent), TUV, CE, and FCC certification.	All hardware components of the Codonics NP-1600M and NP-1600MD have components that have UL, CUL (CSA equivalent), TUV, CE, and FCC certification.
Image Quality (Fidelity)	Prints shouldaccurately represent original digital images; "no lossy compression used."	"There is no lossy compression used with this device." "Image quality has been verified by radiologists who compared hard copy images printed on the system compared with the original CRT images." The printer "produces continuous photographic quality hard copies of electronically created or stored images."
Effectiveness (General)	Device meets its intended use: creating hard copy prints/transparencies of medical images.	"Extensive testing of the device has been performed by technical users, by nontechnical users and by potential customers." "The primary intended use of this device is to create hard copy prints or transparencies of medical images acquired from computer networks typically used in a medical environment."
Substantial Equivalence	Device characteristics and intended use are practically identical to a predicate device, with no significant safety/effectiveness differences.	"The intended use and technological characteristics of the system are practically identical to the Kodak XL7720 line of large format continuous tone printers. Any differences... have no significant influence on safety or effectiveness."
Risk of Harm	No hardware or software flaw should result in death or injury.	"It is our conclusion that there is no hardware device or software component... whose failure or latent system design flaw would be expected to result in death or injury to a patient."

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

Sample Size: Not specified. The document states "Image quality has been verified by radiologists who compared hard copy images printed on the system compared with the original CRT images." It doesn't mention how many images were used, what types of images, or how many CRT images were compared.
Data Provenance: Not specified. The source of the "original CRT images" (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not mentioned.

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)

Number of Experts: Not specified. The document states "radiologists" (plural), indicating at least two.
Qualifications of Experts: Identified as "radiologists." No specific experience level (e.g., "10 years of experience") or subspecialty is mentioned.

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

Adjudication Method: Not specified. The document only mentions that radiologists "compared" the images. It does not describe any formal adjudication process for disagreements or consensus building.

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

MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study in the context of AI assistance was not done. This document predates the widespread concept and rigorous evaluation of AI in medical imaging. The "effectiveness" here refers to the printer's ability to produce faithful hard copies, not the improvement of human readers with AI assistance.

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

Standalone Study: No, this device is a printer, which is a hardware output device. There is no "algorithm" in the sense of a diagnostic AI model that would have standalone performance. The "effectiveness validation" was about the printer's output quality, not an algorithm's diagnostic accuracy.

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

Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth for image quality assessment was the original CRT images themselves, as judged by radiologists. The radiologists were comparing the hard copy print to the original digital display (CRT image) to ensure fidelity. This is a form of expert visual comparison to a direct reference, rather than a diagnostic ground truth like pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This document describes a medical printer, not a machine learning model. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of AI. The "extensive testing" mentioned was for hardware and software functionality and user experience, not for training an algorithm.

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

Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as there is no training set for an AI model.

Summary of Limitations given the document type:

This 1996 510(k) summary for a medical printer is a product of its time and regulatory context. It addresses parameters relevant to a physical device (safety certifications, fidelity of output) rather than the rigorous statistical and clinical validation studies required for contemporary AI-powered diagnostic devices. Therefore, many of the questions asked cannot be answered or are not applicable based on the provided text.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1