Search Results

Quantib ND is a non-invasive medical imaging processing application that is intended for automatic labeling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of segmentable brain structures from a set of magnetic resonance (MR) images. The Quantib ND output consists of segmentations, visualizations and volumetric measurements of brain structures and white matter hyperintensities. Volumetric measurements may be compared to reference centile data. It is intended to provide the trained medical professional with complementary information and assessment of MR brain images and to aid the trained medical professional in quantitative reporting.

Quantib ND is an extension for Quantib Al Node software platform. It is intended for automatic labeling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of identifiable brain structures from magnetic resonance images (a 3D T1-weighted MR image for brain structure segmentation, with an additional T2-weighted FLAIR MR image for white matter hyperintensities (WMH) segmentation). The segmentation system relies on a number of atlases each consisting of a 3D T1-weighted MR image and a label map dividing the MR image into different tissue segments. Quantib ND provides quantitative information on both the absolute and relative volume of the segmented regions. The automatic WMH segmentation is to be reviewed and if necessary, edited by the user before validation of the segmentation, after which volumetric information is accessible. Quantib ND consists of 4 workflows: for both segmentation and quantification of brain structures as well as of white matter hyperintensities is there a single time-point analysis workflow, and a longitudinal workflow, which provides longitudinal analysis of images of two or more time-points. Quantib ND is intended to provide the trained medical professional with complementary information for the evaluation and assessment of MR brain images and to aid the radiology specialist in quantitative reporting.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study proving device performance for Quantib ND 2.0, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for Quantib ND 2.0 are implicitly defined by the performance metrics (Dice index and Absolute difference of relative volumes) that demonstrate its substantial equivalence to the predicate device. While explicit "acceptance thresholds" are not stated, the reported performance is presented as proof of meeting the required level of accuracy for brain structure and white matter hyperintensity (WMH) segmentation.

(Note: Only a subset of the detailed lobe data is included in the table for brevity. The full details are in the provided text.)

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Brain Tissue, CSF, ICV (Dataset A): 33 T1w MR images.
• Hippocampus (Dataset B): 89 T1w MR images.
• Lobes (Dataset C): 13 T1w MR images.
• White Matter Hyperintensities: 45 3D T1w images (7 contrast-enhanced, all with corresponding T2w FLAIR images).

Data Provenance:
The document states that the test sets were "carefully selected to include data from multiple vendors and a series of representative scan settings." However, it does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

The document states that the ground truth was established by "manual segmentations." It does not specify the number of experts involved in creating these manual segmentations or their qualifications (e.g., radiologist with X years of experience).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly mention any adjudication method for the test set's ground truth beyond "manual segmentations," which implies that a single set of expert-generated segmentations served as the reference. There is no mention of 2+1, 3+1, or other consensus methods.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, the document does not describe an MRMC comparative effectiveness study where human readers' performance with and without AI assistance was evaluated. The study focuses solely on the performance of the algorithm against manual segmentations (ground truth). The device is intended to "aid the trained medical professional," but no study on this human-AI interaction is presented.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, the provided performance data (Dice index and Absolute difference of relative volumes) explicitly represents the standalone performance of the Quantib ND 2.0 algorithm by comparing its automatic segmentations and volumetric measurements directly against expert manual segmentations (ground truth).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for performance evaluation was expert manual segmentation.

• For brain structures, manual segmentations were performed on selected slices (Dataset A) or all slices (Datasets B and C) of T1w MR images.
• For White Matter Hyperintensities, manual segmentations were performed on T2w FLAIR images.

This type of ground truth is a form of expert consensus/reference standard, as it relies on human experts to delineate structures.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify the sample size used for the training set. It only describes the test sets used for validation.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

The document does not describe how the ground truth for the training set was established, as the details provided are limited to the performance evaluation of the final algorithm on the test sets.

Ask a specific question about this device

Quantib™ ND is a non-invasive medical imaging processing application that is intended for automatic labeling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of segmentable brain structures from a set of magnetic resonance (MR) images. The Quantib™ ND output consists of segmentations, visualizations and volumetric measurements of brain structures and white matter hyperintensities. Volumetric measurements may be compared to reference centile data. It is intended to provide the trained medical professional with complementary information for the evaluation and assessment of MR brain images and to aid the trained medical professional in quantitative reporting. Quantib™ ND is a software application on top of Myrian®.

Quantib™ ND is a post-processing analysis module for Myrian®, which provides 3D image visualization tools that create and display user-defined views and streamlines interpretation and reporting. It is intended for automatic labeling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of identifiable brain structures from magnetic resonance images (a 3D T1-weighted MR image, with an additional T2-weighted FLAIR MR image for white matter hyperintensities (WMH) segmentation). The segmentation system relies on a number of atlases each consisting of a 3D T1-weighted MR image and a label map dividing the MR image into different tissue segments. Quantib™ ND provides quantitative information on both the absolute and relative volume of the segmented regions. The automatic WMH segmentation is to be reviewed and if necessary. edited by the user before validation of the segmentation, after which volumetric information is accessible. Quantib ND consists of Quantib ND Baseline, which provides analysis of images of one time-point, and Quantib ND Follow-Up, which provides longitudinal analysis of images of two time-points. Quantib ND Follow-Up can only process images that have been processed by Quantib ND Baseline. Quantib ND is intended to provide the trained medical professional with complementary information for the evaluation and assessment of MR brain images and to aid the radiology specialist in quantitative reporting.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in the form of pre-defined thresholds for Dice index or absolute difference of relative volumes. However, the performance data is presented against manual segmentations, implying that the acceptance criteria are generally "good agreement" or "sufficient similarity" to manual segmentations, as judged by the provided metrics. For the purpose of this table, I'll assume that the reported values demonstrate that the device met an implicit acceptance standard.

2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Brain Tissue, CSF, ICV (Dataset A):
  • Sample Size: 33 T1w MR images.
  • Data Provenance: "carefully selected to include data from multiple vendors and a series of representative scan settings." No specific country of origin or retrospective/prospective status is mentioned, but the description implies a historical or retrospective collection.
• Hippocampus (Dataset B):
  • Sample Size: 89 T1w images.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly detailed beyond being T1w images. Implied retrospective.
• Lobes (Dataset C):
  • Sample Size: 13 T1w MR images.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly detailed. Implied retrospective.
• White Matter Hyperintensities:
  • Sample Size: 45 3D T1w images (7 contrast-enhanced), each with corresponding T2w FLAIR images.
  • Data Provenance: "represented various scan settings." Implied retrospective.
  • Note: The absolute difference of relative volumes for WMH was computed over 38 cases (those without contrast-enhancement).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

• The document states that the segmentations were compared to "manual segmentations."
• It does not specify the number of experts who performed these manual segmentations nor their qualifications (e.g., radiologist with X years of experience).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document only mentions "manual segmentations" as the ground truth. It does not provide any information about an adjudication method (such as 2+1, 3+1, or none) for these manual segmentations. It implies a single manual segmentation was used as the reference.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, the provided text does not describe a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study evaluating how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance. The study focuses solely on the standalone performance of the AI algorithm compared to manual segmentations.

6. If a Standalone Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "Algorithm Performance" section details the comparison of the Quantib™ ND algorithm's segmentations and volume measurements against manual segmentations, without human-in-the-loop interaction with the AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The type of ground truth used was expert manual segmentation. The text explicitly states, "To validate the quality of Quantib™ ND volume measurements and segmentations, these were compared to manual segmentations of the same scan and their derived volumes."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not provide information regarding the sample size used for the training set of the Quantib™ ND algorithm. It only discusses the test sets used for validation.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• The document does not provide information on how the ground truth for the training set was established. It only details the method for establishing ground truth for the validation/test sets (manual segmentations).

Ask a specific question about this device