Search Results

The Duet™ System is an automated scanning microscope and image analysis system. It is intended for in-vitro diagnostic use as an aid to the pathologist in the detection, classification and counting of cells of interest based on color, intensity, size, pattern and shape.

The Duet™ System is intended to:

1. Detect Hematopoietic cells stained by Giemsa stain, Immunohistochemistry or ISH (with brightfield and fluorescent) prepared from cell suspension.

2. Detect Amniotic cells stained by FISH (using direct labeled DNA probes for chromosomes X. Y. 13, 18 and 21).

3. Detect Aneuploidy for chromosomes 3,7. 17 and loss of the 9p21 locus via FISH in Urine specimens from subjects with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, probed by the Vysis Urovysion Bladder Cancer Kit.

4. Detect and quantify chromosome 17 and the HER-2/neu gene via fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in interphase nuclei from formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded human breast cancer tissue specimens, probed by the Vysis® Path Vysion™ HER-2 DNA Probe Kit. The Duet™ is to be used as an adjunctive automated enumeration tool, in conjunction with manual review of the digital image, to assist in determining HER-2/neu gene to chromosome 17 signal ratio.

5. Qualitatively detect rearrangements involving the ALK gene via fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in formalinfixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tissue specimens, probed with the Vysis ® ALK Break Apart FISH Probe Kit. The Duer™ is to be used as an adjunctive autonated enumeration with manual review of the digital image. Note: The pathologist should verify the image analysis software application score.

The Duet™ System is a fully integrated imaging and scanning platform that automates time-consuming and difficult laboratory tasks of slide scanning.

The Duet™ System workstation integrates a microscope, CCD camera, motorized stage / slide-loader, computer, keyboard, mouse, joystick, monitor and a dedicated software program.

The Duet™ System is software controlled and includes features such as: acquisition of images, views, editing, relocation, enhancement capabilities, automatic/manual counting and classification, printing, export of images and backups.

The Duet™ System scans in high resolution cell samples at high speed both in bright light illumination and in fluorescent illumination.

The Duet™ System suggests classification of the cells according to their morphological features, their staining (Giemsa, IHC) and fluorescent signals, and allows the user to quickly examine the results, correct them as needed and generate a report summarizing the sample's data. The Duet™ system allows combined presentation of morphological and specific staining information of the same cell, for all the cells of the sample.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for the Test Set

• Reproducibility and Repeatability Study (Study 1):
  • Sample Size: A panel of 16 archived clinical specimen slides. These were categorized into four groups based on positive cell percentage: <10%, 10-25%, 25-50%, and ≥ 50%. There were 4 samples in each of these four value ranges.
  • Data Provenance: The document states "archived clinical specimen slides." No specific country of origin is mentioned, but the manufacturer is based in Israel. The data is retrospective.
• Analytical Performance/Methods Comparison Study (Study 2):
  • Sample Size: 113 specimen slides. Out of these, 32 were positive and 11 were equivocal.
  • Data Provenance: The slides were prepared and probed using the ALK Kit. No specific country of origin is mentioned. The data appears to be retrospective clinical samples.
• Configurations Method Comparison Study (Study 3):
  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a single number. It included "patient slides from each of the four previously cleared indications" and "samples were selected to cover the intended use of both Normal, Abnormal and near the medical decision/cut-off (as applicable)."
  • Data Provenance: Clinical specimens. No specific country of origin is mentioned. The data appears to be retrospective.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• For the Reproducibility and Repeatability Study (Study 1) and Analytical Performance/Methods Comparison Study (Study 2): The studies compare the Duet™ System's performance to "manual system" or "manual scoring method." The document implies that the manual scoring is performed by pathologists in the intended use. While not explicitly stated, it's typical for the ground truth in such studies to be established by qualified pathologists or clinical laboratory scientists with expertise in FISH analysis. The number of experts is not specified.
• For the Configurations Method Comparison Study (Study 3): The comparison was made between the new and cleared configurations, with the "final interpretation of results" being identical. This suggests the ground truth was established based on the existing standard of interpretation (likely by pathologists) for the previously cleared indications. The number and qualifications of experts are not explicitly detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 for resolving discrepancies in the test set.
• For the Analytical Performance/Methods Comparison Study (Study 2), it's a direct comparison against a "manual scoring method." The outcome suggests a high level of agreement, implying that the manual scoring itself served as the reference.
• For the Reproducibility and Repeatability Study (Study 1), variability between runs, days, and sites was measured, not necessarily involving adjudication for a single ground truth.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No specific MRMC comparative effectiveness study is explicitly mentioned to evaluate how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance. The studies presented focus on the device's accuracy and precision compared to a manual method (Study 2) or its own internal consistency (Study 1). The device is noted as an "adjunctive automated enumeration tool, in conjunction with manual review of the digital image," implying a human-in-the-loop workflow, but a formal MRMC study demonstrating improvement in human performance with the device is not detailed.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only without Human-in-the-Loop Performance)

• Yes, a standalone performance ("algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance") was done. The Analytical Performance/Methods Comparison Study (Study 2) directly compares the "Duet™ System method" (which is automated imaging and analysis, i.e., the algorithm) to the "manual scoring method." The results presented, such as "Percent Agreement with Manual Negative" and "Percent Overall Agreement," are measures of the algorithm's performance against the human read. The device is intended as an "adjunctive automated enumeration tool," meaning the pathologist verifies the score, but the study assesses the machine's initial analytical performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Expert Consensus / Manual Scoring: For the Analytical Performance/Methods Comparison Study (Study 2), the ground truth was established by "manual scoring method." This implies that trained personnel (likely pathologists or clinical laboratory scientists) manually interpreted the slides to establish the reference standard.
• Clinical Specimen Characteristics: For the Reproducibility and Repeatability Study (Study 1), the ground truth for "positive" and "negative" categorizations, as well as the percentage of positive cells, was based on the characteristics of the "archived clinical specimen slides."
• Existing Standards: For the Configurations Method Comparison Study (Study 3), the ground truth was based on the "final interpretation of results" for the previously cleared indications, implying adherence to established clinical criteria and interpretations.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for training the Duet™ System's algorithms. The studies described are performance evaluation studies, which would typically use a separate test set, distinct from any training data.

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

• Since the document does not explicitly mention the training set size, it also does not detail how the ground truth for the training set was established. However, for medical imaging analysis systems, training data ground truth is generally established by expert annotation (e.g., pathologists marking regions of interest, classifying cells) or by using slides with known clinical outcomes, often confirmed by pathology or other definitive diagnostic methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Duet™ System is an automated scanning microscope and image analysis system. It is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aiding tool to the pathologist in the detection, classification and counting of cells of interest based on color, intensity, size, pattern, and shape. The Duet™ System is intended to:

• Detect Hematopoietic cells stained by Giemsa stain, Immunohistochemistry or ISH (with bright field and fluorescent) prepared from cell suspension.
• Detect amniotic cells stained by FISH (using direct labeled DNA probes for chromosomes X, Y, 13, 18 and 21).
• Detect cells in urine specimens, stained by FISH (using the Vysis UroVysion™ Bladder Cancer Recurrence Kit for chromosomes 3, 7, 17 and 9p21 locus), from subjects with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder.
• Detect and quantify chromosome 17 and the HER-2/neu gene via fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in interphase nuclei from formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded human breast cancer tissue specimens, probed by the Vysis® PathVysion™ HER-2 DNA Probe Kit. The Duet™ is to be used as an adjunctive automated enumeration tool, in conjunction with manual visualization, to assist in determining HER-2/neu gene to chromosome 17 signal ratio.

The Duet™ System is a fully integrated imaging and scanning platform that automates time-consuming and difficult laboratory tasks of slide screening by making a significant reduction in time and labor currently required.
The Duet™ System workstation integrates a microscope, CCD camera, motorized stage, computer, keyboard, mouse, joystick, monitor and a dedicated software program.
The Duet™ System scans in high resolution and in full color cell samples at high speed both in bright illumination and in fluorescent illumination.
The Duet™ System suggests classification of the cells according to their morphological features, their staining (Giemsa, IHC) and fluorescent signals, and allows the user to quickly examine the results, correct them as needed and generate a report summarizing the sample's data. The unique feature of the Duet™ System allows the combined presentation of morphological and specific staining information of the same cell, for all the cells of the sample.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The core acceptance criteria for the Duet™ System's expanded indication for HER-2/neu gene amplification detection in breast cancer tissue specimens via FISH appears to be demonstrating high agreement with manual scoring methods. This is quantified through metrics like Negative Predictive Accuracy (NPA), Positive Predictive Accuracy (PPA), Overall Percentage Agreement, and Kappa coefficient.

The following table summarizes the reported performance for the device against these implied acceptance criteria, based on the analysis of all methods comparison studies (Studies 1 and 4 combined):

Additional Implied Acceptance Criteria and Performance:

• Reproducibility and Repeatability: High repeatability coefficients of variation (CV) for within-run, day-to-day, and site-to-site analyses. The reported CV values were generally low (0.56% to 12.90%), with one exception of 31.92% for a highly amplified sample where accurate spot counting was inherently difficult.
• Optimal Number of Fields of View (FOVs): Demonstration that a minimal number of FOVs (e.g., 3) provides sufficient accuracy. The study concluded that 3 FOVs are sufficient, with a correlation of 0.996 and an R-squared of 0.993 between 3 and 6 FOV analyses.

Study Details

The study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria is a performance evaluation study that comprises four sub-studies:

1. Methods Comparison (Study 1): Compares the Duet™ System to manual scoring.
2. Precision/Reproducibility Performance (Study 2): Evaluates repeatability and reproducibility.
3. The Optimal Number of Fields of View (Study 3): Determines the optimal FOV count.
4. Methods Comparison at the Borderline Range (Study 4): Focuses on performance in challenging cases.

Detailed information for each requested point is provided below:

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

• Study 1 (Methods Comparison): A total of 56 specimen slides were used. These were prepared from human breast cancer tissue specimens in various stages of the disease, representing the entire intended use population. The data provenance is implied to be retrospective as the slides were "prepared from human breast cancer tissue specimens." The country of origin is not explicitly stated.
• Study 2 (Precision/Reproducibility): Five (5) slides were used, representing the range of intended use (two negative controls, two mid-low amplified controls, one highly amplified slide).
• Study 4 (Methods Comparison at the Borderline Range): A total of 21 human breast cancer tissue specimen slides were used. This included the seven (7) borderline samples from Study-1 and an additional fourteen (14) new borderline samples collected from an "additional site." This suggests retrospective data, and the country of origin is not explicitly stated.

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

• The text frequently refers to the "manual scoring method" as the comparator, which served as the ground truth. However, it does not specify the number of experts who performed the manual scoring nor their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience"). It implicitly refers to "the trained lab technician operator" for clinical use, suggesting the manual scoring was done by qualified laboratory personnel.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) for resolving discrepancies between manual readings or between manual and automated readings. The "manual scoring method" is treated as the reference standard against which the Duet™ System is compared.

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 explicitly described in terms of human readers improving with AI assistance. This study primarily focuses on the standalone performance of the Duet™ System compared to manual scoring. The device is intended to be an "adjunctive automated enumeration tool, in conjunction with manual visualization," implying it assists. However, the study design does not quantify the improvement of human readers when using the AI compared to when they don't. It assesses the agreement between the AI system and manual reading.

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

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "Methods Comparison" studies (Study 1 and Study 4) directly compare the Duet™ System's results (algorithm only, as it performs automated scanning and image analysis) with the manual scoring method. The reported NPA, PPA, Overall Agreement, and Kappa values reflect the Duet™ System's accuracy as a standalone enumeration tool for the specified task. The text states: "...the Duet™ System method for detection of amplification... in comparison to the manual scoring method." This indicates a standalone evaluation of the device's output.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The ground truth used was expert consensus / manual scoring. The text consistently refers to the "manual scoring method" as the reference standard against which the Duet™ System's performance was evaluated. 'Amplification' and 'No-Amplification' were defined based on ratios from the Vysis® PathVysion™ Kit's package insert, which guides manual interpretation.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The document does not specify the sample size for the training set. The performance evaluation study focuses on the test set used to validate the already developed system after "minor software changes, including new algorithm for the automatic calculation of the overall amplification ratio of HER-2/neu gene, were made." It also states "All these changes were fully verified and validated through software verification and validation," implying a development and training phase occurred, but the details are not provided in this summary.

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

• As the document does not specify the training set size, it also does not detail how the ground truth for the training set was established. However, given the nature of the application (HER-2/neu FISH analysis) and the reliance on "manual scoring method" as ground truth for the validation studies, it is highly probable that the training data's ground truth was also established through expert manual scoring and adherence to the Vysis® PathVysion™ Kit instructions.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Duet™ System is an automated scanning microscope and image analysis system. It is intended for in-vitro diagnosis use as an aiding tool to the pathologist in the detection, classification and counting of cells of interests based on particular color, intensity, size, pattern and shape.

The Duet™ System is intended to detect the following cell types:

1. Hematopoietic cells stained by Giemsa stain, Immunohistochemistry or ISH (with bright field and fluorescent) prepared from cell suspension.
2. Amniotic cells stained by FISH (using direct labeled DNA probes for chromosomes X, Y, 13, 18 and 21),

The Duet™ System is a fully integrated imaging and scanning platform that automates time-consuming and difficult laboratory tasks of slide screening by making a significant reduction in time and labor currently required.

The Duet™ scans in high resolution and in full color cell samples at high speed both in bright light illumination and in fluorescent illumination.

Duet™ suggests classification of the cells according to their morphological features, their staining (Giemsa, IHC) and fluorescent signals, and allows the user to quickly examine the results, correct them as needed and generate a report summarizing the sample's data. The unique feature of the Duet system allows the presents combined presentation of morphological and specific staining information of the same cell, for all the cells of the sample.

Here is the information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria, based on the provided text:

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

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

• Test Set Sample Size: 133 slides of Amniotic fluid cells from samples of 68 ongoing pregnancies were used for the accuracy study. A set of four slides was used for the precision study.
• Data Provenance: The country of origin is not explicitly stated in the provided summary. The study appears to be prospective in nature, as it involved preparing slides and then examining them.

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)

The document primarily compares the Duet™ system's performance to the "routine manual method" or "human manual visualization by conventional microscopes" as a predicate. It does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications used to establish the ground truth for the test set. However, it implies that the "manual method" represents the established ground truth.

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

The document does not describe a specific adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1. The ground truth for the comparative performance study for accuracy seems to be established by the "routine manual method". It implies a direct comparison rather than an adjudicated consensus.

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

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly described in the provided text. The study focused on comparing the device's performance against the "routine manual method," not on how human readers improve with AI assistance. The document states the Duet™ System is an "aiding tool to the pathologist," but the study described is a direct comparison to manual methods, not an assisted reading study.

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

Yes, a standalone study was performed. The described "Comparison of the routine manual method and the Duet method" and the "Evaluation of precision performance" assess the Duet™ System's performance in its automated capacity without explicit human intervention in the classification and counting steps being measured against the manual method. The device's role is to "suggest classification of the cells," implying the evaluation of its automated capabilities, with the user then allowed to "correct them as needed" which is a post-analysis step.

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

The type of ground truth used for the accuracy study was implicitly derived from the "routine manual method" of analysis. This suggests that the results obtained by cytogeneticists or pathologists using conventional microscopes were considered the reference standard.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the training set of the Duet™ system. It mentions that the "Duet™ System software as a whole was fully validated during its development process," and "Performance studies were accomplished to validate that the software and the system as a whole comply with the new indication," but does not provide details about training data.

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

The document implicitly states that changes were incorporated to support the new intended use, and the software was validated. However, it does not describe how the ground truth for any potential training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Duet™ system is an automated scanning microscope and image analysis system. It is intended for in-vitro diagnosis use as an aiding tool to the pathologist in the detection, classification and counting of cells of interests based on particular color, intensity, size, pattern and shape.

This particular application is intended to detect hematopoietic cells positively stained by Giemza stain, Immunohistochemistry or ISH (with bright field and fluorescent) prepared from cell suspension. The device can be used without limitation to specific diseases.

The Duet™ System is a fully integrated imaging and scanning platform that automates time-consuming and difficult laboratory tasks of slide screening by making a significant reduction in time and labor currently required.

The Duet™ scans in high resolution and in full color cell samples at high speed both in bright light illumination and in fluorescent illumination.

Duet™ suggests classification of the cells according to their morphological features, their staining (Giemsa, IHC) and fluorescent signals, and allows the user to quickly examine the results, correct them as needed and generate a report summarizing the sample's data. The unique feature of the Duet system allows the presents combined presentation of morphological and specific staining information of the same cell, for all the cells of the sample.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Bioview Ltd. Duet™ system. While it describes the device, its intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, it does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, nor details about a training set or ground truth establishment.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request for a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone studies, or details about the training set and its ground truth.

The document primarily focuses on regulatory approval based on substantial equivalence to existing devices and adherence to voluntary performance standards, rather than presenting a performance study with detailed metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device