Search Results

The Raven is a free standing device used to print diagnostic images on a polyester base for viewing on a standard view box and/or print reports and referral quality images on paper. It may be used in any situation in which a hard copy of an image generated by a medical imaging device is required or desirable.

The device accepts electrical image signals and produces hard copy images. The image signal source may be analog or digital formatted image data from image readers or unformatted image data from other imaging modalities (e.g. CT, MRI). The Sterling Raven Dry Imager uses the information in the image signals to control discrete elements in a print head which writes on the translating paper or Medical Imaging Film, a thermal recording media. The Raven has no laser, cathode ray tube, or optics. Like the predicate devices, the Raven does not use conventional light-sensitive silver halide photographic media, and thus requires no dark room, film processor, processing chemicals, water, drainage, or dryer ventilation. It produces no chemical waste, and requires no space for chemical storage.

The major elements are the film magazine, transport mechanics, imaging electronics, and head.

The provided text, a 510(k) submission for the Sterling Raven Dry Imager, focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting a formal study with defined acceptance criteria and performance results in the manner typically seen for new diagnostic algorithms.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing your points where possible:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state acceptance criteria in the form of quantitative performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, image quality scores) that a study would aim to meet for a new diagnostic device. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly focused on the functional equivalence and safety compared to predicate devices. The reported "performance" is primarily a description of the device's capabilities and its similarity to existing, cleared devices.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not mention a specific "test set" or a sample size of medical images used for a performance study. This is expected given the nature of a 510(k) for an imager rather than a diagnostic algorithm. The assessment is based on the device's mechanical and output characteristics, and comparison to existing technology.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable, as no image-based test set is described.

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

• Number of Experts/Qualifications: Not applicable. There is no mention of experts establishing ground truth for a test set of images. The "ground truth" for this device likely revolves around objective physical properties of the printed image (e.g., density, resolution, uniformity) which would be assessed using measurement tools and visual inspection by engineers/quality control, rather than clinical experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable, as no test set requiring expert adjudication is described.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

• MRMC Study: No. The text does not mention an MRMC study. The device is a "dry imager," meaning it generates physical prints. The focus is on the quality of these prints being comparable to those from predicate imagers, not on improving human reader performance with AI assistance. There is no AI component mentioned in the context of diagnostic interpretation.
• Effect Size: Not applicable.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

• Standalone Study: No. The Sterling Raven Dry Imager is a hardware device for printing images, not a diagnostic algorithm. Its performance is intrinsically linked to the physical output. While it has a software component for interfacing and control, this software itself is stated to be "equivalent to the software used in the predicate devices," suggesting no novel algorithmic performance study was needed or performed.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Type of Ground Truth: For a device like an imager, the "ground truth" would be related to the physical characteristics of the printed output compared to the input digital image, and against the performance of predicate devices. This would likely involve:

  • Objective physical measurements: Densitometry (for gray-scale accuracy), spatial resolution tests (line pairs per mm), modulation transfer function (MTF), uniformity measurements.
  • Visual comparison: Comparing printed images from the Raven to those from predicate devices or reference prints for fidelity, contrast, and overall diagnostic quality when viewed by trained personnel.
  • Functional validation: Ensuring all interfaces work correctly and the device reliably prints without error.

  The document implies that these types of characteristics were assessed to deem the "performance... similar to that of the predicate."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Sample Size: Not applicable. The Sterling Raven Dry Imager is a printing device, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set" in the context of AI development. The device's operation is based on established engineering principles and thermal printing technology.

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

• Ground Truth Establishment: Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device