Search Results

Imaging of:

• . The Whole Body (including head, abdomen, pelvis, limbs and extremities, spine, neck, TMJ, heart, blood vessels). [Application terms include MRCP (MR Cholangiopancreatography), MR Cisternography, MR Myelography, MR Myelography, MR Fluoroscopy, SAS (Surface Anatomy Scan), Dynamic Scan, Cine Imaging and Cardiac tagging.] { K002531 }
• Fluid Visualization { K002531 } ●
• . 2D / 3D Imaging { K002531}
• . MR Angiography / MR Vascular Imaging {K002531}
• Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) imaging { K002531} ●
• Perfusion / Diffusion Imaging {K993803, K002531}
• . Proton Spectroscopy { K010129}

The EXCELART™ with Pianissimo XG/AG SPIN Edition system has the following features compared to the current EXCELART™ with Pianissimo XG/AG system.

• Extension of a receiving system is enabled a maximum of 8 ch. .
• Use of QD Torso SPEEDER corresponding to Parallel imaging which can shorten scan time is . enabled.
• The computer only for reconstruction was carried for high-speed image processing. .
• . dB/dt enabled use by 1st operating mode specified in IEC 60601-2-33 by the TrueSSFP sequence.
• Max. field strength is changed 25mT/m to 30mT/m. .
• . The marginal performance (Min.TR/Min.TE / Min.Slice thickness / Imaging area) of a sequence has been improved.
• The user interface of software was changed for the improvement of operativity. '
• . Gating unit was redesigned to improve the making triggers for sequence.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary of safety and effectiveness for a Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Device Accessory. This document is a premarket notification to the FDA to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

Crucially, this document does not contain an independent study with acceptance criteria and a detailed analysis of device performance against those criteria in the way a clinical trial or performance study would typically be structured for a new device claiming improved diagnostic accuracy.

Instead, the submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence by showing that the new device (EXCELART™ with Pianissimo XG/AG SPIN Edition) has comparable safety and imaging performance parameters to its predicate device (current EXCELART™ with Pianissimo XG/AG, cleared under K002531), while highlighting specific hardware and software changes.

Therefore, the requested information elements related to acceptance criteria, a specific study proving it, sample sizes for test sets, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details are not explicitly present in this type of submission.

However, I can extract and present the available information in a structure that addresses your points where possible, along with explaining why other points cannot be answered from this document.

Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

This 510(k) submission does not present a standalone study with defined acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance of the device against a gold standard in the typical sense of a clinical trial for a new diagnostic claim.

Instead, the device seeks substantial equivalence to a predicate device (EXCELART™ with Pianissimo XG/AG, K002531). The "acceptance criteria" can be inferred as maintaining similar or improved safety and imaging performance characteristics as the predicate device, especially regarding the new features. The study, implicitly, is the comparison of technical specifications and performance against the predicate.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As explicit acceptance criteria with specific thresholds for performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) are not provided in a 510(k) summary focused on substantial equivalence based on technical changes, I will present the key safety parameters where changes or comparisons were made. The "reported device performance" in this context refers to the parameters of the new device relative to the predicate.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. This 510(k) summary focuses on technical specifications and comparisons rather than a clinical study with a patient test set for diagnostic performance. The "testing" appears to be largely engineering and phantom-based to verify new functionalities and safety parameters.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Given it's a comparison to an existing device, and the manufacturing site is Japan, some internal testing or data may originate from there. However, it's not a dataset of patient images from a specific country.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Not applicable in the context of a clinical performance study with patient data.

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

• Not applicable / Not specified. This document does not describe a clinical study where experts established ground truth for a diagnostic test set. The evaluation is primarily technical and comparative against a predicate device's specifications.

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

• Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring expert adjudication for ground truth is described.

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. This device is an MRI system and its accessory, not an AI-powered diagnostic algorithm or an assistance tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human-AI collaboration is not relevant or described.

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

• Not applicable. This is an MRI hardware and software update, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

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

• Implicitly, engineering specifications and measurements. For parameters like static field strength, acoustic noise, SAR, and dB/dt, the "ground truth" is derived from physical measurements and adherence to regulatory standards (e.g., IEC 60601-2-33). For "imaging performance," the claim is "no changes from the previous submission, K002531," implying that the imaging quality is at least equivalent to the already cleared predicate device, which would have undergone its own validation based on established imaging metrics.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable / Not specified. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set in that context. The "training" for the system would involve engineering development and quality control, not data-driven model training.

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

• Not applicable. As above, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device