Search Filters

Search Results

Found 3 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K223060
    Device Name
    DigiX FDX
    Date Cleared
    2022-10-26

    (26 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    892.1680
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    DigiX FDX

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The DigiX FDX radiographic systems are used in hospitals, clinics and medical practices. DigiX FDX enables radiographic exposure of the whole body including: Skull, chest, abdomen, and extremities and may be used on pediatric, adult and bariatric patients. It can also be used for intravenous, small interventions (like biopsy, punctures, etc.) and emergency (trauma critical ill) applications.

    Exposure may be taken with the Patient's sitting, standing, or in the prone/supine position.

    The DigiX FDX System is not meant for mammography.

    The DigiX FDX uses an integrated or portable or fixed or wi-fi digital detector for generating diagnostic images by converting X-Ray into electronics signals. DigiX FDX is also designed to be used with conventional film/screen or Computed Radiography (CR) Cassettes.

    Device Description

    The DigiX FDX system is a diagnostic X-Ray system intended for general purpose radiographic imaging of the human body. It is not intended for mammographic imaging.

    The DigiX FDX system is comprised of a combination of devices that include a ceiling mounted X-Ray tube suspension, vertical Bucky stand, fixed or mobile patient Bucky table, X-Ray generator, X-Ray tube, beam limiting device, and a solid-state image receptor.

    The DigiX FDX systems are not intended to be operated with any other cleared devices, or to be integrated with other software/hardware devices via direct or indirect connections.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided FDA 510(k) summary for the DigiX FDX device details its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, particularly focusing on technical and functional similarities rather than a standalone performance study with specific acceptance criteria related to diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, the response will focus on the details available within the document regarding non-clinical testing and conformity to standards, as a direct "acceptance criteria vs. reported performance" table for diagnostic metrics is not present.

    Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

    The document does not present specific acceptance criteria in terms of diagnostic performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity for a particular condition) and a corresponding reported device performance with numerical results. Instead, the acceptance criteria are framed in terms of:

    • Conformity to recognized standards: The device must comply with various IEC and ISO standards related to electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, radiation protection, software life cycle, usability, and risk management.
    • Meeting design requirements: Non-clinical verification testing ensures the device's functions and image performance meet its design specifications.
    • Substantial equivalence: The primary "acceptance criterion" for this 510(k) submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate devices (DigiX FDX K192541 and Siemens Ysio K081722) without raising new questions of safety or effectiveness.
    Acceptance Criteria CategoryReported Device Performance / Assessment
    Safety TestingCompliance with 21 CFR Federal Performance Standards (1020.30, 1020.31) and various FDA-recognized consensus standards (IEC 60601-1, 60601-1-2, 60601-1-3, 60601-2-54, 62304, 60601-1-6, 62366-1, ISO 14971, IEC 60825-1). Risk Analysis performed; risk control implemented to mitigate identified hazards.
    Functional TestingFunctional testing of all motions of the system(s) with respect to design specifications. All functions met design requirements.
    Image PerformanceImage performance testing was conducted; results were included in the submission. Image performance criteria were met satisfactorily.
    Software VerificationSoftware documentation for a Moderate Level of Concern software was included. Testing results support that all software specifications met acceptance criteria. Verification and Validation testing concluded no impact on safety and effectiveness from software updates.
    Substantial EquivalenceDemonstrated by showing identical intended use, design principle, and applicable standards to the predicate and reference devices. Performance and non-clinical consideration results showed differences (e.g., appearance, user interfaces, physical dimensions, added detectors) do not raise new safety/effectiveness questions.
    Dual Energy SubtractionMarked as "Yes" for Subject Device, "No" for Predicate/Reference. This implies this new feature's performance and safety were evaluated to ensure it does not create new risks.

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

    The document explicitly states: "No clinical data is necessary to evaluate safety or effectiveness for purposes of determining substantial equivalence of the proposed device. Hence, clinical testing is not applicable due to the fact that no new clinical applications were introduced to the system. Bench testing was performed to assess the device safety and effectiveness."

    Therefore, there was no "test set" in the sense of patient images or clinical data used for this 510(k) submission to prove diagnostic performance. The testing was non-clinical (bench testing, verification, and validation) and focused on engineering criteria, safety, and functionality.

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

    Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring expert ground truth was used for this submission.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring adjudication was used for this submission.

    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

    Not applicable. The DigiX FDX is an X-ray imaging system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device for image interpretation. Its changes primarily involve hardware components (new detectors) and software GUI updates.

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

    Not applicable. This device is an X-ray system, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

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

    Not applicable in the context of diagnostic ground truth. For the non-clinical testing performed, the "ground truth" would be established by engineering specifications, recognized standards, and established testing methodologies for hardware and software functionality and safety.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set for diagnostic classification.

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

    Not applicable.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K192541
    Device Name
    DigiX FDX
    Date Cleared
    2019-10-16

    (30 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    892.1680
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    DigiX FDX

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The DigiX FDX radiographic systems are used in hospitals, clinics and medical practices. DigiX FDX enables radiographic exposure of the whole body including: Skull, chest, abdomen, and extremities and may be used on pediatric, adult and bariatic patients. It can also be used for intravenous, small interventions (like biopsy, punctures, etc.) and emergency (trauma critical ill) applications. Exposure may be taken with the Patient's sitting, standing, or in the prone/ supine position.

    The DigiX FDX System is not meant for mammography.

    The DigiX FDX uses an integrated or portable or fixed or wi-fi digital detector for generating diagnostic images by converting X-Ray into electronics signals. DigiX FDX is also designed to be used with conventional film/screen or Computed Radiography (CR) Cassettes.

    Device Description

    The DigiX FDX system is a diagnostic X-Ray system intended for general purpose radiographic imaging of the human body. It is not intended for mammographic imaqing.

    The DigiX FDX system is comprised of a combination of devices that include a ceiling mounted X-Ray tube suspension, vertical Bucky stand, fixed or mobile patient Bucky table, X-Ray generator, X-Ray tube, beam limiting device, and a solid-state image receptor.

    The DigiX FDX systems are not intended to be operated with any other cleared devices, or to be integrated with other software/hardware devices via direct or indirect connections.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided document:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than defining specific quantitative performance metrics as "acceptance criteria" for a new AI/software feature in the way clinical performance studies usually do. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied to be that the modifications do not negatively impact safety or effectiveness, and that the device performs comparably to the predicate devices and meets relevant safety standards.

    For the new features explicitly mentioned (Automatic Stitching and Dual Energy Subtraction), the document states they add functionality without affecting patient safety or effectiveness. For the other components, the criteria are often "Same" or "Similar functionality with same imaging results" or "doesn't affect the safety or effectiveness."

    To represent this in a table, we'll extract performance comparisons from the "Functional and Specification Differences" table (Table 4) and the "Justification for Differences" (Table 5).

    Feature / Acceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance (Subject Device: DigiX FDX)Comparison to Predicate 1 (DigiX FDX K162529)Comparison to Predicate 2 (Siemens Ysio K081722)Justification (Implied Acceptance)
    Clinical Characteristics / Indications for UseSame as predicateSameSameNo new indications for use; no new potential hazards.
    Mechanical Design (e.g., travel ranges for Ceiling Mounted X-Ray Tube Suspension, Vertical Bucky Stand, Patient Table)Various models with specified travel ranges (e.g., Longitudinal travel: 300 cm, Transverse travel: 200 cm for CSA FDX)Mostly "Same as predicate 1" or minor differences with "Similar Functionality"Differences noted but generally "Same as predicate 1" or "Similar Functionality"Minor changes do not impact intended use, safety, or effectiveness.
    Patient Table Maximum Patient Capacity250 kg (551 lbs) for FloatexXL, Floatex ADV, MobiT 6C, MobiT 4C; 200 kg (440 lbs) for MobiT CIncreased from 200 kg (440 lbs) for some modelsHigher (300 kg for Predicate 2) or NACapable of carrying higher patient weight without raising new risks (Note 1).
    X-Ray Generator (kW rating, kV range, mA max, mAs range, APR programming)Specified ranges and capabilities (e.g., 65 kW/80 kW, 40-150 kV, 650/800 mA)"Same" for most parameters; mAs range same as predicate 1"Same" for some parameters; mAs range "NS" for predicate 2Consistent with predicate devices.
    IR RemoteYes (Wireless IR Remote available)NoNANew feature, but same functionality as wired hand switch, EMC compliant, meets 21 CFR (Note 3). No new safety/effectiveness issues.
    X-Ray Tube (Various Varex models: G1092, G292, A292, A192, RAD 14)Various models with specified focal spots, heat units, target angles, target diameters, target materials.Mostly "Same as predicate 1" or "Similar Functionality" (e.g., for RAD 14, target diameter different but essentially same imaging results)Differences noted but generally "Same as predicate 1" or similar.Already cleared by FDA, essentially same imaging results, do not affect safety or effectiveness (Note 4).
    Beam Limiting Device (Construction, CFR 211020.31, Automatic)Multi-leaf, Compliant, YesSameSameCompliant with standards.
    Solid State X-Ray Image Detector (Various models from Varex, Thales, IRAY)Various models with specified panel types, active areas, pixel pitches, pixel matrices, scintillators, limiting resolutions.Mostly "Same as predicate 1" or "Similar Functionality" or "Same imaging results."Mostly "Same as predicate 2" or "Similar Functionality" or "Same imaging results."Previously cleared by FDA, does not raise safety concerns or affect effectiveness (Note 5, 6, 7).
    Viewing Monitors19 inch or more (Touch and Non Touch)19 inch Monitor19 inch MonitorSimilar functionality, same imaging results, doesn't affect patient safety or effectiveness (Note 8).
    Software Operating SystemMicrosoft Windows 7 / Microsoft Window 10Microsoft Windows 7 / Microsoft Window 10Microsoft Windows 7Similar Functionality (Note 9). Updated OS.
    Automatic Image Stitching (Software Feature)AutomaticManualManualNew functionality. Software documentation for moderate level of concern included. No new safety/effectiveness issues (Note 9).
    Dual Energy Subtraction (Software Feature)YesNoNoNew feature. Improves radiologist's ability to detect/diagnose chest lesions, makes calcification more conspicuous. Doesn't affect patient safety or effectiveness (Note 10).
    EMC/Electrical SafetyCompliant with IEC Standards (60601-1, 60601-1-2, 60601-1-3, 60601-2-54, ISO 14971, 62366-1, 62304)Implicitly comparableImplicitly comparableAll testing completed and found acceptable. Hazards mitigated. Substantially equivalent to predicate device in safety and effectiveness.
    Software Level of ConcernModerate Level of ConcernModerate Level of Concern (for predicate software DROC K130883)Moderate Level of Concern (for predicate software DROC K130883)Software documentation provided per FDA guidance. No new safety/effectiveness issues (Note 9).

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

    The document states:

    • "Non-clinical testing included verification and validation testing, image evaluation, testing, and safety testing."
    • "Performance testing included functional testing of all motions of the system(s) with respect to the design specifications. Image performance testing was conducted and results included in the submission."
    • "Clinical testing is not applicable due to the fact that no new clinical applications were introduced to the system."

    The document does NOT specify a sample size for any test set (clinical or otherwise) in terms of patient data or images used for validation of the radiographic system itself, nor does it mention data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It primarily relies on hardware and software equivalence, and compliance with industry standards.

    3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

    Not applicable. The document explicitly states "Clinical testing is not applicable." Therefore, there was no clinical study conducted that would necessitate expert readers to establish ground truth for a test set. The evaluation focuses on technical performance and equivalence to predicate devices.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. As no clinical test set requiring expert adjudication was performed, no adjudication method is mentioned.

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

    No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. The document states "Clinical testing is not applicable due to the fact that no new clinical applications were introduced to the system." Therefore, there is no information on how much human readers improve with or without AI assistance. The new software features (Automatic Stitching, Dual Energy Subtraction) are presented as additional functionalities that don't affect safety or effectiveness, not as AI-assisted diagnostic tools requiring a comparative effectiveness study.

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

    Not applicable. The device is a radiographic system, not an AI algorithm intended for standalone diagnostic performance. While it includes new software features (Automatic Stitching, Dual Energy Subtraction), these are integrated functionalities of the imaging system and not described as standalone diagnostic algorithms requiring independent performance evaluation without human interaction.

    7. Type of Ground Truth Used

    The "ground truth" for the evaluation is primarily based on:

    • Compliance with technical specifications and design requirements: Functional testing, image performance testing.
    • Adherence to safety and performance standards: IEC 60601 series, EN ISO 14971, IEC 62366-1, IEC 62304, 21 CFR 1020.30, 21 CFR 1020.31.
    • Substantial equivalence to predicate devices: Demonstration that the new device has the same intended use, fundamental technological characteristics, and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
    • Software documentation assessment: For the software components, including the new features, documentation was provided for a "Moderate Level of Concern" software as per FDA guidance.

    No clinical ground truth (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) was used or required given the nature of this submission.

    8. Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. The document describes an X-ray imaging system, not an AI/ML device that requires a training set of data. The new software features (Automatic Stitching, Dual Energy Subtraction) are described as functionalities, not adaptive algorithms that learn from data.

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

    Not applicable. As there was no training set, there was no ground truth to establish for it.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K162529
    Device Name
    DigiX FDX
    Date Cleared
    2017-03-03

    (175 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    892.1680
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    DigiX FDX

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The DigiX FDX radiographic systems are used in hospitals, clinics and medical practices. DigiX FDX enables radiographic exposure of the whole body including: Skull, chest, abdomen, and extremities and may be used on pediatric, adult and bariatric patients. It can also be used for intravenous, small interventions (like biopsy, punctures, etc.) and emergency (trauma critical ill) applications. Exposure may be taken with the Patient's sitting, standing, or in the prone position. The DigiX FDX System is not meant for mammography. The DigiX FDX uses an integrated or portable or fixed or wi-fi digital detector for generating diagnostic images by converting X-Ray into electronics signals. DigiX FDX is also designed to be used with conventional film/screen or Computed Radiography (CR) Cassettes.

    Device Description

    The DigiX FDX system is a diagnostic x-ray system intended for general purpose radiographic imaging of the human body. It is not intended for mammographic imaging. The DigiX FDX system is comprised of a combination of devices that include a ceiling mounted x-ray tube suspension, vertical Bucky stand, fixed or mobile patient Bucky table, x-ray generator, x-ray tube, beam limiting device, and a solid-state image receptor. The DigiX FDX systems are not intended to be operated with any other cleared devices, or to be integrated with other software/hardware devices via direct or indirect connections.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the Allengers Medical Systems Limited DigiX FDX device, based on the provided text:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

    The document primarily focuses on substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Siemens Ysio K081722) rather than defining explicit, quantitative acceptance criteria for clinical performance. The "acceptance criteria" can be inferred as meeting or being sufficiently similar to the predicate device in terms of functionality and safety, as well as complying with relevant standards.

    Acceptance Criteria (Inferred)Reported Device PerformanceComments on Equivalence
    Indications for Use: Essential equivalence in scope of use (skull, chest, abdomen, extremities, pediatric, adult, bariatric, interventions, emergency, not mammography).Matches predicate.Essentially the same. No differences in indication or intended use.
    Mechanical System Travel (Ceiling-mounted X-ray tube suspension): Longitudinal, Transverse, Vertical travel within acceptable range for full patient coverage.Longitudinal: 300 cm (Predicate: 346 cm)
    Transverse: 200 cm (Predicate: 220 cm)
    Vertical: 150 cm (Predicate: 190 cm)Similar with less travel; provides full patient coverage. Does not affect safety or effectiveness.
    Mechanical System Travel (Vertical Bucky Stand): Vertical travel within acceptable range for full patient coverage.VBSAdv Vertical: 125 cm (Predicate: 145 cm)
    VBS M XL Vertical: 162 cm (Predicate: 141 cm)Similar with less/more travel; provides full patient coverage.
    Patient Table Features: Type, travel, locking mechanism, maximum patient capacity.Matches predicate for several components: 4-way float top, electromagnetic locking. Different models (FloatexXL, Floatex+, Floatex, MobiT 6C, 4C, C) have varying travel limits and weight capacities.Similar, providing patient positioning. Max patient capacity of 200 kg (440 lbs) lower than predicate's 300 kg (660 lbs) for some models, but "Does not affect safety or effectiveness."
    X-ray Generator: Kilowatt rating, kV min/max, mA max @ 100kV, APR programming.Matches predicate.Same.
    X-ray Tube: Focal spot sizes, heat units, target angle, target diameter, target material.Variations in specific models (e.g., Varian G1092 vs. Siemens OPTITOP):
    • G1092: 0.6mm/1.2mm focal spot (Predicate: 0.6mm/1.0mm), 1 MHU (Predicate: 783 kHU), 108 mm target diameter (Predicate: 100 mm).
      G292: 0.6mm/1.2mm focal spot (Predicate: 0.6mm/1.0mm), 600 KHU (Same), 12° target angle (Predicate: 16°), 102 mm target diameter (Predicate: 100 mm). | Similar, providing essentially same imaging resolution and higher loading for some G1092 models. Different target angle for G292 provides full coverage at 40" SID. Differences in heat units and target diameter also noted as "similar" or providing higher loading/instantaneous focal spot loading. |
      | Beam Limiting Device: Construction, compliance with CFR 21 1020.31, automatic feature. | Matches predicate. | Same. |
      | Solid State X-ray Image Detectors: Panel type, active area, pixel pitch, pixel matrix, input scintillator, limiting resolution. | Detectors (e.g., P-E XRPAD 4343F vs. Trixell Pixium 4600):
    • Active area: 432x432mm (Predicate: 429x429mm).
    • Pixel pitch: 100 µm (Predicate: 143 µm).
    • Pixel matrix: 4318x4320 (Predicate: 3001x3001).
    • Limiting resolution: 5 lp/mm (Predicate: 3.57 lp/mm).
      Similar differences for other detector models listed. | Essentially the same imaging area. Provides higher resolution for pixel pitch, pixel matrix, and limiting resolution in most cases, which is considered an improvement and not negatively affecting safety or effectiveness. |
      | Viewing Monitors: Size, resolution. | Matches predicate. | Same. |
      | Software Features: DICOM 3.0 compatibility, operating system, user interaction, multi-user, image import/export, acquisition device, image interferences, organization, search, storage, database, viewing, measurement, annotation, operations, security, generator control. | Matches predicate for all listed software features. Also uses previously cleared image processing software. | Same. |
      | Safety Standards Compliance: | Complies with 21 CFR 1020.30, 21 CFR 1020.31, IEC 60601-1, EN 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-1-3, IEC 60601-2-54, EN ISO 14971, EN 62366, EN 62304. | All applicable standards met. |
      | Functional Performance: All system motions, image performance. | All functions met design requirements. Image performance criteria satisfactorily met (details in Section 18 of the original submission, not provided in this extract). | Confirmed. |
      | Software/Firmware Functionality: All functions between DROC software and IntegraX firmware. | All functions passed testing criteria. | Confirmed. |

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

    The document explicitly states: "It was determined that clinical evaluation was not required as all imaging devices have been previously cleared by the FDA."
    Therefore, there was no clinical test set used for this specific 510(k) submission. The evaluation was based on non-clinical testing and substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices.

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

    Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring expert ground truth was used.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

    Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring adjudication was used.

    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:

    Not applicable. The device is a diagnostic X-ray system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, and no MRMC study was conducted.

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

    Not applicable. The device is a diagnostic X-ray system, not an algorithm, and its performance is evaluated as a system used by a human operator.

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

    Not applicable for clinical ground truth, as no clinical evaluation was performed. For non-clinical performance (image quality, functional testing, safety), the "ground truth" was compliance with design specifications and relevant international standards.

    8. The sample size for the training set:

    The document does not describe the use of machine learning or AI models that would require a "training set" in the traditional sense. The device is a traditional X-ray system. The component parts, such as solid-state detectors and image processing software, are stated to have been "previously cleared by the FDA" or "tested and evaluated per Guidance for the Submission of 510(k)s for Solid State X-ray Imaging Devices." Therefore, any implicit training (e.g., for image processing algorithms) would have occurred as part of the development and clearance of those component devices, but details are not provided here for the system submission.

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

    Not applicable, as no training set for an AI/ML model is described for this device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1