Search Results

The Outlook system is indicated for use as a NMR device that produces images that: (1) correspond to the distribution of protons exhibiting NMR, (2) depend upon the NMR parameters (proton density, flow velocity, spin-lattice relaxation time (TI), and spin-spin relaxation time (T2)) and (3) display the soft tissue structure of the head and whole body. When interpreted by a trained physician, these images yield information that can be useful in the determination of a diagnosis.

The MRGP Basic Package is designed to support and guide diagnostic interventional procedures, such as needle biopsies and drainages.

The MRGP Basic Package is an optional hardware package for the Outlook and Outlook Proview systems. The package includes a foot pedal for starting scans from inside the scan room, kneeling pads for the physician, an MR compatible procedure light, a multipurpose coil with disposable protective coil coverings, and either an in-room LCD display or an in-room Large (36") Screen display. The package uses the standard software and sequences available with the Outlook and Outlook Proview systems.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Picker MR Guided Procedures (MRGP) Basic Package. This document aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria through a specific performance study against defined metrics.

Therefore, the document does not contain information typically associated with acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets them in the way described in the prompt. Instead, it relies on a comparison table to show direct equivalence in technical parameters and indications for use.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

As this is a 510(k) submission demonstrating substantial equivalence, there are no explicitly stated "acceptance criteria" in the sense of performance thresholds the device must meet, nor a study proving it meets these. Instead, the "Substantial Equivalence Chart" presents a comparison of parameters between the new device (MRGP Basic Package) and two predicate devices (Outlook System Enhancement Package and Siemens MR Guided Procedure Package). The underlying "acceptance criterion" is that the parameters of the new device are "Same" or comparable to the predicate devices, implying equivalent safety and effectiveness.

The "Status" column indicates whether the MRGP Basic Package is "Same," "Equivalent," "Comparable," "Similar," or "Different" to the predicate devices based on the information provided in the table. The overall aim of this 510(k) is to demonstrate that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Regarding the specific questions about studies and ground truth:

Since this is a 510(k) for substantial equivalence, a formal performance study with acceptance criteria, ground truth establishment, and expert adjudication as might be conducted for a new-to-market device is not described in this document. The submission relies on technical comparisons to predicate devices that have already established safety and effectiveness.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. The document does not describe a clinical performance study with a test set of data. The demonstration of equivalence is based on technical specifications and comparison to predicate devices.

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 applicable / Not provided. No ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is described.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. No adjudication of 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:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. This device is a hardware/software package for an MRI system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. No MRMC study is mentioned.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. This device is an MRI accessory package, not a standalone algorithm.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. There is no mention of a ground truth for a performance study. Equivalence is primarily established through technical specifications and comparison to predicate devices. The "Indications for Use" for the new device align with the Siemens predicate, which implies similar clinical utility and expected diagnostic outcomes when interpreted by a trained physician. The safety is demonstrated by the "Same" or comparable technical parameters, suggesting that the well-understood safety profiles of the predicate devices apply.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. No training set for an algorithm is mentioned as this device is not an AI/ML product requiring such a set.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. No training set is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device