Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K963162
    Device Name
    QUANTEM
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    1996-11-12

    (90 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    892.1200
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    QuantEM™ package is a renal analysis package for Tc-99m MAG3 renal images. The QuantEM™ method was developed at Emory University, Atlanta, GA for calculating the clearance of Tc-99m MAG3. It provides a comprehensive package consisting of processing and protocols to aid the technologist and physician in the performance and interpretation of Tc99m MAG3 renograms

    Device Description

    The QuantEM™ package is implemented on the Apex XPert workstation of the Varicam gamma camera (K953801).

    AI/ML Overview

    This document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, study details, or performance metrics.

    The provided text is a Summary of Safety and Effectiveness for the K963162 premarket notification. It states that the QuantEM™ package on the Apex XPert workstation is "substantially equivalent" to previous versions of the QuantEM™ package on GE Starcam computers (K932957) and the Apex XPert workstation (K953801).

    Here's why the requested information is not present:

    • No Acceptance Criteria or Performance Data: The document makes a claim of "equivalence" but does not define specific acceptance criteria or provide any quantitative study data to demonstrate that equivalence. It states that "validation and tests were made to ensure correct processing results," but the details of these tests, their acceptance criteria, or the actual results are not included.
    • No Study Details: There's no mention of sample sizes, data provenance, number or qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, or training set details. This is typical for a substantial equivalence claim where a new device is compared to a legally marketed predicate device without necessarily requiring new clinical performance studies if the technological characteristics and intended use are similar enough.

    Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions based on the provided input. The document focuses solely on establishing substantial equivalence in regulatory terms rather than detailing a performance study.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1