Search Results

The iU22 system and transducers are intended for diagnostic ultrasound imaging and fluid flow analysis of the human body.

The iU22 system and transducer(s) function in a manner identical to all diagnostic ultrasound systems and transducers. The system circuitry generates an electronic voltage pulse, which is transmitted to the transducer. In the transducer, a piezo electric array converts the electronic pulse into an ultrasonic pressure wave. When coupled to the body, the pressure wave transmits through body tissues. The Doppler functions of this system process the Doppler shift frequencies from the echoes of moving targets (such as blood), to detect and graphically display the Doppler shifts of these tissues as flow.

The iU22 system gives the operator the ability to measure anatomical structures, and offers analysis packages that provide information used by competent health care professionals to make a diagnosis.

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) summary for a diagnostic ultrasound system (Philips iU22). This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and detailing the intended use and technical specifications.

It does not contain information about:

1. Specific acceptance criteria with numerical targets. The document states that "The systems have acoustic output levels below the applicable FDA limits" and "The systems are designed and manufactured to applicable electrical and physical safety standards," but it doesn't provide the specific numerical limits or performance metrics.
2. A study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria. The 510(k) process for this type of device relies on substantial equivalence rather than explicit performance studies with acceptance criteria for device accuracy or diagnostic capability, especially in the context of AI.
3. Sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance. These are typically associated with performance studies for AI/CADe devices, which this ultrasound system, being from 2004, likely does not incorporate in the way modern AI devices do.
4. Ground truth establishment for training sets or their sample sizes. Again, this points to AI development and validation, which is not described here.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them based on the provided text. The document is for a traditional diagnostic ultrasound system seeking 510(k) clearance based on substantial equivalence to existing devices, not a study validating an AI algorithm's performance against specific metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device