LogoFDA 510(k) Search
Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K112145
    Device Name
    MONOCHROME DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY LCD MONITOR MS33I2
    Manufacturer
    TOTOKU ELECTRIC CO., LTD
    Date Cleared
    2011-11-07

    (104 days)

    Product Code
    LLZ
    Regulation Number
    892.2050
    Type
    Traditional
    Panel
    Radiology
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    K090947
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    MONOCHROME DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY LCD MONITOR MS33I2

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    20.8 inch Monochrome Digital Mammography 3M pixel LCD Monitor with sub-pixel driving techniques enabling 9M subpixels to be driven independently, MS33i2 (ML21033) is intended to be used in displaying and viewing medical images for diagnosis by trained medical practitioners. It is to be used in digital mammography PACS and modalities including FFDM.

    Device Description

    MS33i2 (ML21033) is a 20.8-inch monochrome LCD monitor whose display resolution is 1536 x 2048 (landscape), 2048 x 1536 (portrait) supporting DVI (digital visual interface) and DisplayPort.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the "20.8 inch Monochrome Digital Mammography LCD Monitor MS33i2 (ML21033)" by TOTOKU ELECTRIC CO., LTD. It's a display monitor intended for viewing medical images for diagnosis, specifically in digital mammography PACS and modalities.

    Based on the provided text, the device is a monitor, not an AI/algorithm-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, the questions related to AI performance, sample sizes for training/test sets, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, or MRMC studies are not applicable. The substantial equivalence is based on device characteristics rather than diagnostic performance.

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    As this is a display monitor and not a diagnostic algorithm, typical performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC as seen in AI studies are not relevant. The substantial equivalence is based on technical specifications and intended use comparison with a predicate device.

    Acceptance Criteria (Implied by substantial equivalence)Reported Device Performance (Implied by substantial equivalence)
    Intended Use: Used in displaying and viewing medical images for diagnosis by trained medical practitioners, in digital mammography PACS and modalities including FFDM.Device shares the same intended use as the predicate device.
    Technical Characteristics Comparison: Similar display resolution, monochrome display, DVI and DisplayPort support.MS33i2 (ML21033) is a 20.8-inch monochrome LCD monitor with display resolution 1536 x 2048 (landscape), 2048 x 1536 (portrait).
    Safety and Effectiveness: Demonstrated through comparison to a legally marketed predicate device.Substantially equivalent to the predicate device MS31i2 (MDL2128A) (K090947). Differences are in the main board, LCD panel, and power supply, which are implicitly not considered critical enough to alter fundamental safety or effectiveness for the stated intended use.

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

    Not applicable. This is a medical device monitor, not a diagnostic algorithm that processes patient data. The evaluation for substantial equivalence would involve technical testing of the monitor's performance characteristics (e.g., luminance, contrast, resolution) rather than a test set of medical images with ground truth.

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

    Not applicable. Ground truth for diagnostic accuracy is not established for a monitor.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    Not applicable. Adjudication methods are used in studies involving diagnostic interpretations of images, which is not the primary evaluation for a display monitor.

    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

    Not applicable. The device is a monitor, not an AI tool.

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

    Not applicable. The device is a monitor, not an algorithm.

    7. The type of ground truth used

    Not applicable. The concept of "ground truth" as it pertains to diagnostic accuracy studies is not relevant for a display monitor's regulatory clearance. The "ground truth" for a monitor would relate to its physical specifications and imaging performance standards.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. The device is a monitor, not a machine learning model requiring a training set.

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

    Not applicable. The device is a monitor, not a machine learning model.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1