Search Results

To obtain attenuation corrected emission images and to provide registration of anatomical and physiological images.

The Hawkeye Option is an addition to the Apex VariCam / Millennium VG gamma cameras (K953801). It comprises additional hardware and software to generate corrected NM images for non-uniform attenuation and to facilitate localization of the emission images in the patient anatomy.

The provided 510(k) summary for the Hawkeye Option for Dual-Head Variable Angle Gamma Camera (K991841) is very brief and lacks detailed information about specific acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study design.

Here's an analysis based on the available text, addressing your points as much as possible, and noting where information is not provided:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The 510(k) summary does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or provide specific numerical performance metrics. Instead, it offers a qualitative summary.

Study Details

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

   • Not provided. The document refers to "clinical data" but does not specify the number of patients, scans, or their origin, nor whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

2. 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)

   • Not provided. There is no mention of experts or how ground truth was established for "uniformity" or "localization capabilities." Given the nature of the device (image correction and display), it's possible that the "ground truth" for uniformity was visual assessment or phantom studies, and for localization, it might have involved co-registration with anatomical images, but none of this is detailed.

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

   • Not provided. The document does not describe any expert adjudication process.

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

   • Not provided, and unlikely given the device type. The Hawkeye Option is described as an "additional hardware and software to generate corrected NM images" and "to facilitate localization." This suggests it's an image processing and display tool for a gamma camera, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically involve human reader performance improvement metrics. The summary focuses on the technical qualities of the images (uniformity, localization) rather than diagnostic efficacy in a human-in-the-loop setting.

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

   • Implied, but not explicitly detailed. The "Summary of Studies" mentions "bench and clinical data show that Hawkeye attenuation-corrected images are more uniform... The images also demonstrate the localization capabilities..." This suggests that the performance observed relates to the algorithm's output (the corrected images) without necessarily involving a human's diagnostic interpretation as the primary endpoint. The qualitative statements about "uniformity" and "localization capabilities" are assessments of the algorithm's direct output.

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

   • Not explicitly stated, but likely based on visual assessment or phantom studies for uniformity, and image registration accuracy for localization. For "uniformity," the ground truth might be a predefined standard of image homogeneity for nuclear medicine scans or comparative visual assessment against uncorrected images. For "localization capabilities," the ground truth would likely involve the accuracy of aligning emission images with anatomical landmarks or images, potentially verified against known anatomical structures.

7. The sample size for the training set

   • Not applicable/Not provided. The Hawkeye Option appears to be a traditional image processing and correction algorithm, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that typically requires a distinct "training set." If any parameters were learned or optimized, the training data details are not disclosed.

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

   • Not applicable/Not provided. As above, a specific "training set" and associated ground truth establishment methods are not mentioned, consistent with a non-AI image processing device.

Summary of Deficiencies in the Provided Information for your Request:

The 510(k) summary is extremely brief and provides very high-level declarative statements rather than detailed study methodology. It lacks specific numerical data, sample sizes, expert qualifications, clear definitions of ground truth for performance metrics, or any information typical of modern clinical performance studies, especially those involving AI. This is characteristic of older 510(k) summaries, which often focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence through more general statements and less detailed technical reporting than is now common.

Ask a specific question about this device