Search Results

The GC85A Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GC70 Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GU60A & GU60A-65 Digital X-ray Imaging Systems are intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GF50 Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GF50A Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GR40CW Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in general projection radiographic applications wherever conventional screen-film systems or CR systems may be used. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GM85 Digital Mobile X-ray imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

GC70, GU60&GU60A-65, GF50, GF50A, GR40CW, GM85 and GC85A are used to capture images by transmitting X-ray to a patient's body. The X-ray passing through a patient's body is sent to the detector and then converted into electrical signals. These signals go through the process of amplification and digital data conversion in the signal process on the S-station, which is the Operation Software (OS) of Samsung Digital Diagnostic X-ray System, and save in DICOM file, a standard for medical imaging. The captured images are tuned up by an Image Post-processing Engine (IPE) which is exclusively installed in S-station, SAMSUNG digital X-ray operation software, and sent to the Picture Archiving & Communication System (PACS) sever for reading images.

The IPE operates, from the input image, the roles of a region-of-interest extraction, tonescale mapping, noise reduction and texture restoration. The IPE employing an advanced noise reduction algorithm (hereinafter "new IPE") is shown that the image quality of PA radiograph for average adult chest, exposed at the condition of 50% lower dose at Entrance Skin Exposure (ESE) in comparison with the condition of the conventional noise reduction algorithm (hereinafter "old IPE"), is substantially equivalent.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning dose reduction capabilities of the Image Post-processing Engine (IPE) with an advanced noise reduction algorithm in Samsung Digital X-ray Systems (GC70, GU60A, GU60A-65, GF50, GF50A, GR40CW, GM85, and GC85A).

Here is the requested information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion is the ability of the new IPE to reduce X-ray dose while maintaining image quality comparable to the old IPE for diagnostic confidence. The specific dose reduction percentages are the performance metrics.

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

• Adult Abdominal Radiograph Test Set:

  • Anatomical phantom images: Number of images not specified, but taken at "various exposure condition." The study states, "the new IPE with an advanced noise reduction algorithm retained the quality of images captured at 47.5% reduced exposure in comparison with the old IPE."
  • Clinical images: Number of images not specified, but used to "confirm that it was possible to reduce the dose in clinical images as well."
  • Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the submission is from Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. Republic of Korea. The clinical testing was conducted at "one medical site."
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not specified.

• Pediatric Population Test Set (Chest, Abdomen, Skull):

  • Number of images: "Series of dose-simulated images" for each body part.
  • Number of patients: Not specified explicitly, but mentioned as "each patient."
  • Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the submission is from Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. Republic of Korea. The clinical testing was conducted at "one medical site."
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not specified.

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

• Adult Abdominal Radiograph Test Set:

  • Anatomical phantom images were reviewed by three professional radiologists.
  • Clinical images were reviewed by two professional radiologists.
  • Qualifications: "Professional radiologists" (no further details on experience given).

• Pediatric Population Test Set:

  • Three experienced pediatric radiologists.
  • Qualifications: "Experienced pediatric radiologists" (no further details on experience given).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method is not explicitly detailed. However, for both adult and pediatric studies, images were "scored by the 5-point grading scale" for assessment of image quality. This implies individual scoring, and for the pediatric study, "Three experienced pediatric radiologists assessed the series of dose-simulated images to decide the optimal dose for each patient." The decision for the "optimal dose" for pediatric cases suggests a consensus or agreement among these experts, but the exact method (e.g., majority vote, discussion to reach consensus) is not specified.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done to evaluate human readers' improvement with AI vs. without AI assistance. The study focused on the device's standalone performance in enabling dose reduction while maintaining image quality as assessed by human readers. The new IPE is a component within the imaging system, not an AI assistance tool for human readers.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Yes, the studies evaluated the standalone performance of the new IPE algorithm in terms of enabling dose reduction while maintaining image quality. The performance was assessed by comparing images processed by the new IPE at reduced doses against images from the old IPE or a reference, with human experts providing the assessment of image quality and diagnostic appropriateness.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for both adult and pediatric studies was expert consensus/assessment of image quality and diagnostic appropriateness.

• For adult abdominal radiographs: Expert radiologists scored images based on a 5-point grading scale, considering anatomical regions, physical parameters, sharpness, and visualization.
• For pediatric populations: Experienced pediatric radiologists assessed dose-simulated images to determine the "optimal dose" at which image quality remained appropriate for diagnosis.

Additionally, phantom studies (TOR CDR radiography phantom and anthropomorphic phantom) were used to quantitatively assess image quality metrics like Contrast to Noise Ratio (CNR), Detail Compacted Contrast (DCC), and Modulation Transfer Functions (MTF).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about the training set size for the Image Post-processing Engine (IPE) algorithm. It focuses on the validation of the algorithm's dose reduction capabilities.

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

The document does not provide information on how the ground truth for the training set was established for the IPE algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The GC70 Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GU60A & GU60A-65 Digital X-ray Imaging Systems are intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

GF50 Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GF50A Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GR40CW Digital X-ray Imaging System is intended for use in general projection radiographic applications wherever conventional screen-film systems or CR systems may be used. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

The GM85 Digital Mobile X-ray imaging System is intended for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy by a qualified/trained doctor or technician. This device is not intended for mammographic applications.

GC70, GU60&GU60A-65, GF50, GF50A, GR40CW and GM85 are used to capture images by transmitting X-ray to a patient's body. The X-ray passing through a patient's body is sent to the detector and then converted into electrical signals. These signals go through the process of amplification and digital data conversion in the signal process on the S-station, which is the Operation Software (OS) of Samsung Digital Diagnostic X-ray System, and save in DICOM file, a standard for medical imaging. The captured images are tuned up by an Image Post-processing Engine (IPE) which is exclusively installed in S-station, and sent to the Picture Archiving & Communication System (PACS) sever for reading images.

An IPE operates, from the input image, the roles of a region-of-interest extraction, tonescale mapping, noise reduction and texture restoration. The IPE employing an advanced noise reduction algorithm is shown that the image quality of PA radiograph for average adult chest, exposed at the condition of 50% lower dose at Entrance Skin Exposure (ESE) in comparison with the condition of the conventional noise reduction algorithm, is substantially equivalent. It was cleared with K172229 that using the IPE is able to reduce dose of 50% for chest PA of average adult in GC85A.

This submission is purposed to get 510(k) clearance for expanding the scope of the claim, cleared with K172229, from GC85A to the proposed devices, Samsung x-ray systems.

The IPE, a software which has no relation with imaging chain, is applied to the proposed devices and it is evaluated that images acquired by a various imaging chain are substantially equivalent to GC85A in a non-clinical evaluation.

The proposed devices with the IPE employing an advanced noise reduction algorithm are able to reduce dose of 50% for chest PA of average adult for marketing purpose.

This claim is based on a limited study of an anthropomorphic phantom that simulates the x-ray properties of an average size adult, and on a small clinical study at one facility. Only routine PA chest radiography was studied, and results for larger-size adults (body mass index) greater than 30 was not studied to statistical significance. The pediatric patients was not studied and the clinical site is responsible for determining whether the particular radiographic imaging needs are not impacted by such x-ray dose reduction.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification summary for several Samsung Digital X-ray Imaging Systems (GC70, GU60A&GU60A-65, GF50, GF50A, GR40CW, and GM85). The core of the submission is to expand the scope of a previously cleared Image Post-processing Engine (IPE) with an advanced noise reduction algorithm (from K172229 for GC85A) to these additional devices, claiming that the IPE can achieve a 50% dose reduction for chest PA of average adults while maintaining image quality.

However, the document explicitly states: "This submission does not required clinical data." This means that a clinical study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on human reader performance with or without AI (MRMC study) was not conducted or submitted as part of this premarket notification. The evaluation relies heavily on non-clinical data and the substantial equivalence to a predicate device that previously demonstrated the dose reduction claim for a specific device (GC85A).

Given this, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria based on a clinical study or details about a MRMC study, as none were required or performed for this specific submission's scope expansion.

Here's what can be extracted and inferred from the document regarding the device and its testing, tailored to the questions where information is available:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Non-Clinical Data)

Since no clinical study was required for this submission, the "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" are based on non-clinical evaluations comparing the image quality of the proposed devices with the IPE to the predicate device (GC85A) and to images produced with conventional settings. The primary claim revolves around the ability to maintain image quality at a 50% reduced dose.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical)

"Therefore, the IPE is capable of providing the same dose reduction in AP adult chest radiographs for the proposed devices as it does for the predicate GC85A." |
| Safety and EMC Standards Compliance: Electrical, mechanical, environmental safety, and EMC testing according to relevant standards. | "Electrical, mechanical, environmental safety and performance testing according to standard ES 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-1-3, IEC 60601-2-28, IEC 60601-2-54, ISO14971, 21CFR1020.30 and 21CFR1020.31 were performed, and EMC testing was conducted in accordance with standard IEC 60601-1-2. Wireless function was tested and verified followed by guidance, Radio frequency Wireless Technology in Medical Devices. All test results were satisfying the standards." |

Study Details (Based on Available Information)

1. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test Set (Non-clinical): The document mentions "a limited study of an anthropomorphic phantom that simulates the x-ray properties of an average size adult" and "a small clinical study at one facility." However, the quantitative assessment for this specific submission's purpose (expanding IPE scope) was non-clinical: "The quantitative assessment of image quality was conducted with the images of TOR CDR radiography phantom and TO20 contrast detail phantom taken at a various exposure condition with different Samsung X-ray imaging systems." No specific sample size (number of phantom images) is provided.
   • Data Provenance: The anthropomorphic phantom study and "small clinical study" mentioned for the initial GC85A clearance (K172229) are noted as having limitations: "Only routine PA chest radiography was studied, and results for larger-size adults (body mass index) greater than 30 was not studied to statistical significance. The pediatric patients was not studied..." The origin country of the data is not explicitly stated for these studies, but Samsung is a Republic of Korea company. The non-clinical test set for this submission involved "various Samsung X-ray imaging systems" which would likely be internally generated. The studies mentioned (phantom and small clinical) for the original IPE clearance (K172229) were likely a mix of retrospective/prospective, but this detail is not provided for those underlying studies, nor are they claimed as part of this current submission's direct evidence, only referenced as a basis.

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

   • For the non-clinical quantitative assessment in this submission (MTF, CNR, visibility of phantom images), human experts were not used to establish quantitative ground truth. These are objective measures.
   • For the original clearance of the IPE (K172229) where the "small clinical study" and "substantially equivalent" image quality claim was made with 50% dose reduction based on human perception, no details about expert readers, their number, or qualifications are provided in this summary.

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

   • Not applicable for the non-clinical quantitative assessment of phantom images.
   • Not provided for the underlying "small clinical study" that was part of the original IPE clearance.

4. 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. The document explicitly states: "This submission does not required clinical data." Therefore, no MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed or submitted for this specific 510(k) notification. The evaluation relies on substantial equivalence to the predicate and non-clinical data.

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

   • The IPE is a software component (algorithm) that processes images. The "quantitative assessment of image quality was conducted with the images of TOR CDR radiography phantom and TO20 contrast detail phantom," which constitutes a standalone (algorithm only) performance evaluation based on objective image quality metrics (MTF, CNR, visibility). This confirms the algorithm's ability to process images in a way that, quantitatively, maintains image quality.

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

   • For the non-clinical quantitative assessment (of image quality parameters like MTF, CNR, visibility), the "ground truth" is derived from physical phantoms with known properties and objective measurements. It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.
   • The claim of "substantially equivalent" image quality at 50% dose reduction (from K172229) implicitly relies on human perception from a "small clinical study," but the ground truth establishment method for that is not detailed here.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not mentioned in the document. The document describes the "proposed devices" (SAMSUNG X-ray systems) and the "IPE" (Image Post-processing Engine) as software. It asserts that the IPE "operates, from the input image, the roles of a region-of-interest extraction, tonescale mapping, noise reduction and texture restoration." It also notes the IPE "employing an advanced noise reduction algorithm." While algorithms require training data, the submission does not delve into the development or training of the IPE.

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

   • Not mentioned in the document, as details about the IPE's development and training process are outside the scope of this 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence for the application of an already cleared IPE to new devices.

Ask a specific question about this device