Search Results

The L7 when used with Aspen ultrasound system is capable of providing diagnostically useful images of anatomy and pathology in the major bone, joint, and muscle groups of the human body. Specific anatomy and pathology in the neck, shoulders, arms, elbows, wrist, hand, hips and pelvis, legs, knees, ankles and feet can be imaged. The images obtained depict anatomical structures and regions of increased and reduced blood flow which are useful to physicians in detecting normal and abnormal conditions in these regions of the body.

The Aspen model ultrasound system and L7 transducer is a general purpose diagnostic ultrasound system that received marketing clearance via 510(k) K934915/S1 on October 21, 1994. For the musculoskeletal indication for use described above, the device consists of the L7, a 128 element, 3-10 Mhz broadband, 38 mm flat linear array transducer and electronic and mechanical hardware, software controls, and digital components comprising the ultrasound system console.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for an ultrasound system (Aspen) and transducer (L7) that received clearance for an additional musculoskeletal indication. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study results, or the methodology to establish ground truth as typically found in comprehensive clinical validation studies.

The document states:

• "Clinical studies were conducted to verify system performance in all imaging modes. Clinical data was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration as part of our 510(k) notification." (Section VII)
• It does not provide details on what these clinical studies entailed, the acceptance criteria, the specific performance metrics measured, or the statistical methods used to prove performance.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for a detailed study description cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Based on the available information, here's what can be answered:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the provided text. The document implies that the "clinically useful images" of musculoskeletal anatomy and pathology were considered sufficient for the new indication.
• Reported Device Performance: Not quantified with specific metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). The document states the device is "capable of providing diagnostically useful images of anatomy and pathology."

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. The text only mentions "Clinical studies were conducted."
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

• Not specified. The process of establishing ground truth for the clinical studies is not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not specified.

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 indication of an MRMC study. This document predates widespread AI integration in medical imaging, and the device described is a diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The focus is on the imaging capability of the hardware/software, not on human-AI synergy.

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

• Not applicable. This relates to an AI algorithm, which is not the subject of this 510(k) for an ultrasound system. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device itself producing interpretable images, which implicitly means the images are sufficient for human interpretation.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Not explicitly stated. Given it's an imaging device for "diagnostically useful images of anatomy and pathology," the ground truth would likely have been established through a combination of expert radiologists/clinicians interpreting the images and correlating them with clinical findings, other imaging modalities, or potentially surgical/pathology findings if applicable to the pathologies being studied. However, no specifics are provided.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not specified as a separate concept. For a traditional ultrasound system, the "training set" doesn't exist in the same way as for a machine learning model. The system's design and parameters are developed through engineering and physics principles, and then validated through clinical studies. If the question implies internal development data, that information is not provided.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device