Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

To provide an optional means of mobility for physically challenged people.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA to Pillar Technology, Inc. regarding a device named "Glory." This letter confirms that the device has been found substantially equivalent to a predicate device for its stated indications for use: "To provide an optional means of mobility for physically challenged people."

However, this document does not contain any information about:

• Acceptance criteria or reported device performance.
• Study details (sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods).
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or standalone algorithm performance.
• Training set details.

The letter is a regulatory approval document and does not delve into the technical study details that would typically be found in a 510(k) submission. Therefore, I cannot generate the requested table and information based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The intended use and the indications for use of the GLORY mammography system (Screening and diagnostic breast radiography) are unchanged.

Radiography of the breast
Preoperative wire localization and stereotactic biopsy procedures

The Advanced Automatic Detector Selection (AADS) option is used with the automatic exposure control of the GLORY mammography system. With the AADS option, the legally marketed GLORY system can determine exposure parameters automatically from a detector located beneath the densest breast tissue.

This 510(k) summary does not contain the detailed information necessary to complete all sections of your request. The document describes an "Advanced Automatic Detector Selection (AADS) option for the GLORY Mammography System" and focuses on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing a detailed performance study with acceptance criteria.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided, highlighting what is present and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Comment: The document does not define specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, image quality metrics) for the AADS option's performance. Instead, it makes a qualitative statement about its safety and effectiveness relative to the predicate device.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not provided. The document focuses on regulatory compliance and substantial equivalence rather than a clinical performance study.

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

• This information is not provided as the document does not describe a performance study with a test set requiring ground truth established by experts.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable as no performance study with a test set 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

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The device is an "Advanced Automatic Detector Selection" option, implying an automated function during image acquisition, not necessarily an AI-assisted interpretation tool for human readers.

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

• The device is an "option" for an existing mammography system, designed to "determine exposure parameters automatically from a detector located beneath the densest breast tissue." This implies a standalone algorithmic function within the system for exposure control. However, the document does not contain data to describe its standalone performance in terms of specific metrics. It's an enhancement to the existing automatic exposure control.

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

• Not applicable as no performance study requiring "ground truth" to evaluate diagnostic accuracy is described. The device's function is exposure control, not diagnosis.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. The document describes a device option, not a machine learning model that would typically have a training set.

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

• Not applicable. As above, this device is not presented as a machine learning model requiring a training set with ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

The intended use and the indications of use of the GLORY mammography system are identical to those of the MAM-CH22S mammography system. Radiography of the breast

The GLORY mammography system describes a modification of the legally marketed MAM-CH22S mammography system (K960381). Compared to the MAM-CH22S mammography system, additional radiation (or mAs) is provided for very thick or dense breasts and higher mA values are provided with the small focal spot for magnification procedures.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the GLORY mammography system, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

Based on the provided documents, it's important to note that this is a 510(k) premarket notification for a modification of an already legally marketed device (MAM-CH22S). The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than presenting an entirely new device with novel performance studies against specific acceptance criteria for a new indication.

Therefore, many of the typical elements of a detailed performance study proving a device meets acceptance criteria (like specific sensitivity/specificity thresholds, MRMC studies, or detailed ground truth establishment for a test set) are not present in these documents. Instead, the focus is on comparing the modified device's technical specifications and safety to the predicate device.

Here's the information extracted from the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Since this is a substantial equivalence submission for a modification, the "acceptance criteria" is primarily demonstrating substantial equivalence in safety and effectiveness to the predicate device (MAM-CH22S). The performance metrics reported are primarily in terms of technical capabilities rather than clinical outcomes.

Study Details

Given the nature of a 510(k) for a modification focused on substantial equivalence, a traditional "study proving the device meets acceptance criteria" in the sense of a large clinical trial with predefined performance metrics is not described here. The "study" is more of an engineering and comparative analysis.

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

   • Not applicable / Not specified. The document does not describe a clinical "test set" of patient data used to evaluate diagnostic performance. The comparison is primarily at a technical specification level.

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

   • Not applicable. No clinical test set with expert-established ground truth is mentioned.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable. No clinical test set.

4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

   • No. An MRMC study is not mentioned or described.

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

   • No. This device is a mammography system (hardware), not an AI algorithm. Standalone algorithm performance is not relevant here.

6. Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • Not applicable. For this type of 510(k), the "ground truth" for demonstrating equivalence largely relies on technical specifications, safety standard compliance, and the established performance of the predicate device.

7. Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • Not applicable. This is a hardware system, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

   • Not applicable. As above, no training set.

Summary of Approach:

The regulatory strategy for the GLORY Mammography System was to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device (MAM-CH22S). The primary evidence for this was:

• Identical Intended Use and Indications: The device performs the same diagnostic function.
• Technical Enhancements: The modifications (additional mAs for dense breasts, higher mA for magnification) were presented as improvements for specific scenarios, not changes that altered the fundamental safety or effectiveness negatively.
• Safety Compliance: Adherence to international safety standards (IEC 601-1) and an analysis of the modifications to ensure no new significant risks.

This type of submission relies on the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate device and the argument that the modifications do not introduce new questions of safety or effectiveness, effectively piggy-backing on the prior clearance. It does not involve de novo clinical studies to establish new performance metrics against specific acceptance thresholds.

Ask a specific question about this device