Search Results

The Philips BuckyVision is intended for use in general radiographic examinations and applications wherever conventional screen-film systems may be used (excluding fluoroscopy, angiography, and mammography).

The Philips BuckyVision System uses the new x-ray imaging technology ( Solid State X-ray Imager, SSXI ), that converts x-rays directly into electrical signals which can, after appropriate processing, be displayed on a crt-monitor for medical diagnosis or printed out on laser-imager. The basis of the system is a standard Philips bucky Diagnost System with additional TRIXELL PIXIUM-4600 SSXI connected to a Philips Thoravision-like workstation for worklist-managment, image-processing, image-exporting, and printing. The complete system includes additional subsystems and components, like X-raytube(s), X-ray-generator, collimator, and optionally, a wall bucky with SSXI.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study detailed in the provided documents:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets those criteria. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The implicit "acceptance criterion" for this 510(k) submission is that the Philips BuckyVision system is functionally and technologically similar enough to its predicate devices to be considered safe and effective for its intended use.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Information (Based on the Provided Text)

Based on the provided text, there is no detailed description of a clinical study or performance study with specific data, sample sizes, or expert evaluations. The 510(k) submission primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a de novo performance study with quantitative results.

Here's what can be inferred or confirmed as not present in the document:

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not provided.
   The document does not describe a distinct "test set" in the context of a dedicated performance study with patient data. The basis of equivalence is technical and intended use comparison.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not provided.
   There is no mention of a ground truth establishment process or expert involvement beyond the FDA's regulatory review process itself.

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: Not applicable/Not done.
   This device (Philips BuckyVision, cleared in 1998) is a direct digital radiography system, not an AI-powered diagnostic aid or an algorithm designed to assist human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance would not be relevant to this product.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable/Not done.
   Similar to point 5, this is a hardware and software system for image acquisition and display, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not provided.
   As there's no described performance study, no ground truth method is mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable/Not provided.
   This is not an AI/machine learning device, so the concept of a "training set" for an algorithm is not relevant.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable/Not provided.
   As above, this is not an AI/machine learning device.

Summary of the FDA 510(k) process for this device:

The provided text is a 510(k) summary and the FDA's clearance letter. For devices like the Philips BuckyVision, which were cleared in the late 1990s as substantial equivalence to predicate devices, it was common for the submission to focus on technical specifications, intended use, and comparison to existing legally marketed devices rather than extensive clinical efficacy trials or sophisticated performance studies like those required for novel AI-powered devices today. The "proof" of meeting acceptance criteria (i.e., being safe and effective) for such a submission was largely based on the demonstration that it was fundamentally similar to previously cleared devices.

Ask a specific question about this device