Search Results

Esaote's MyLab70 is a mainframe ultrasound system used to perform diagnostic general ultrasound studies including Cardiac, Transesophageal, Peripheral Vascular, Neonatal Cephalic, Small organ, Musculoskeletal (Conventional and Superficial), Abdominal, Fetal, Transvaginal, Transrectal, Adult Cephalic, Pediatric and Other: Urologic.

The MyLab 70 is a mainframe ultrasound system used to perform diagnostic general ultrasound studies. Its primary modes of operation are: B-Mode, M-Mode, Doppler and Color Flow Mapping and, on lower frequency probes, Tissue Enhancement Imaging (TEI). The MyLab70 is equipped with a CRT Color Display. The full alphanumeric keyboard allows complete on-screen data entry of patient information and on-screen annotations.

The MyLab70 can drive phased (PA), convex (CA), linear array (LA) and Doppler probes.

The MyLab70 is equipped with a DVD-RW disk drive that can be used for image storage. Data can also be stored directly to a Personal Computer via a LAN port. Optional accessory devices available for the MyLab70 include a S-VHS video recorder and a monochrome or color page printer. The MyLab70 is equipped with an isolation transformer to adequately insulate the system's peripherals.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the MyLab70 Ultrasound Imaging System. It outlines the device description, intended uses, and technological characteristics by comparing it to predicate devices. However, this document does not contain acceptance criteria or the results of a study designed to prove the device meets specific performance criteria.

The 510(k) process is primarily about demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily proving that the new device meets predefined, quantitative acceptance criteria through a specific performance study in the way a clinical trial for a novel device would. The "technological characteristics" table provides a comparison of features and indications for use, but this is not a performance study.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is what can be inferred or explicitly stated based on the document:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated as quantitative performance metrics for the device itself. Instead, the acceptance for this 510(k) is based on the device demonstrating "substantial equivalence" in intended use and technological characteristics to predicate devices. The technological characteristics table lists features and modes of operation that are present in the MyLab70 and its predicates, which implies these features are considered acceptable if they function similarly to the predicates.
• Reported Device Performance: No specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, dice score, etc.) are reported for the MyLab70 in this document. The document primarily attests to the presence of certain features and modes of operation.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The 510(k) summary does not describe a performance study with a test set.

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):

• This information is not provided as no specific ground truth establishment for a test set is described.

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

• This information is not provided as there is no mention of a test set or adjudication process.

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:

• This information is not provided. This document describes an ultrasound imaging system, not an AI-assisted device. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI-related effectiveness is mentioned.

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

• This information is not provided. This is not an AI algorithm but an ultrasound imaging system, so standalone performance in that context is not applicable or discussed.

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

• This information is not provided as no specific ground truth for a performance study is mentioned. The "ground truth" for this 510(k) is implicitly the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This information is not provided. This is not an AI/machine learning device, so the concept of a "training set" is not applicable.

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

• This information is not provided as it's not an AI/machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device