Search Results

Model 37-185 is used to provide a means of scanning the light field and radiation field generated by radiation therapy machines and presents this data for quality control purposes only. Sequential scans of the light field and the radiation field provides information as to whether the cross hairs in the light field are in the center of the radiation field (per TG-40), the coincidence of the light field to the radiation field, and beam flatness and symmetry. These data aid in the determination of the therapy machine's performance characteristics.

The product consists of two main parts; the readout module, and the scanner (data acquisition) module. The readout module is located outside the treatment room while the scanner is positioned on the treatment couch in such a manner as to allow the detectors to transverse the radiation beam as determined by the operator. The readout and the scanner are connected via a single 25 meter (75 foot) shielded cable.

The readout contains a LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) and 8 softkeys providing the operator interface. The readout also includes the microprocessor system, memory, printer interface and computer interface. Connections are provided for the power supply, parallel printer, computer RS-232 interface and the scanner cable.

The scanner module contains a stepper motor and a transport mechanism that moves a light detecting diode and a radiation detecting diode 50 cm, in a straight line to obtain a beam or light field profile during a measurement cycle. There is a fixed radiation detecting diode located in the center of the scanner which acts as a reference to null out any fluctuations in the amplitude of the radiation beam (as a function of time). The stepper motor controller and detector pre-amplifiers are also housed in the scanner assembly. The product includes a separate leveling mechanism to level the scanner module and rotate it 90 degrees.

The provided text describes the Victoreen Model 37-185, a device used for quality control of radiation therapy machines. However, it does not contain detailed information about acceptance criteria, a specific study that proves the device meets those criteria, or the methodology of such a study. The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a performance study with detailed acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot directly answer most of your numbered points from the provided input. The information necessary to fill out a table of acceptance criteria and device performance, details about sample size, expert qualifications, ground truth, or MRMC studies is not present.

However, I can extract the available information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the provided text. The document refers to "quality control purposes only" and obtaining information "as to whether the cross hairs in the light field are in the center of the radiation field (per TG-40), the coincidence of the light field to the radiation field, and beam flatness and symmetry." However, specific numerical or qualitative criteria for these measurements are not provided.
• Reported Device Performance: Not explicitly stated in the provided text as a quantifiable study result. The device's function is described: "provides a means of scanning the light field and radiation field... and presents this data." The implication is that it accurately performs these scans, but no performance metrics are given.

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

• Not provided.

3. 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.

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

• Not provided.

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 study is mentioned. This device is a quality control tool for radiation therapy machines, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or treatment planning system involving human readers in the context of interpreting patient data.

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

• The device itself functions as a standalone measurement tool, providing data for quality control. It's not an "algorithm only" in the modern AI sense, but rather a sensor system. The document does not describe a performance study for its standalone accuracy against a gold standard.

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

• Not provided. For a device measuring radiation and light fields, the ground truth would likely be established by conventional, highly accurate physical measurement tools, but this is not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. This device is a measurement tool, not a machine learning model that typically requires a training set in the AI context.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. (See point 8)

Summary of available information related to performance/validation (from the 510(k) context):

The document states:

• The device is "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device (Beam Scan, Model 37-201, 510(k) #K853671A). This implies that its safety and effectiveness are similar to a device already on the market without the need for new extensive clinical trials for performance.
• Intended Use: "quality control purposes only."
• Functions: "scanning the light field and radiation field generated by radiation therapy machines and presents this data." It provides information on "whether the cross hairs in the light field are in the center of the radiation field (per TG-40), the coincidence of the light field to the radiation field, and beam flatness and symmetry."
• The device "does not involve patient contact nor is it used to evaluate patient treatment planning. The patient is not in the room while this product is in use." This context suggests that the primary validation would be technical accuracy and reliability of its measurements rather than direct patient outcome studies.

In conclusion, the provided 510(k) summary focuses on regulatory approval through substantial equivalence and describes the device's function and intended use. It does not contain the detailed performance study information with explicit acceptance criteria, sample sizes, and ground truth methodologies that you requested. Such details would typically be found in a more comprehensive testing report, which is not part of this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device