Search Results

An accessory to a Fundus camera providing spectrally resolved images of the retina and optic disc and providing high contrast visualization of the blood vessels.

The Retinal Cube is an accessory to a standard fundus camera which enables the acquisition, processing, and display of spectrally resolved images with high contrast visualization of blood vessels. The Retinal Cube consists of the following three major components. - The imager unit which mounts on a standard fundus camera and actually acquires the ● spectrally resolved images - A controller unit which contains the electronics that control the imager - . A computer which performs display processing and provides the user interface for the system The imager unit produces a three dimensional data set consisting of a spectrum for each pixel. The 'data is processed using an algorithm which takes advantage of the spectral information to produce a two dimensional image containing high contrast visualization of the blood vessels.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Retinal Cube device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly define a table of acceptance criteria with numerical targets. Instead, the acceptance criterion for the Retinal Cube appears to be demonstrated substantial equivalence to the predicate device, the Topcon IMAGEnet 640 digital ophthalmic imaging system. This equivalence is primarily based on comparable performance in visualizing blood vessels and meeting general safety standards.

The document claims the device meets this criterion based on the following:

Study Information

The document describes two types of studies: Bench Data and Clinical Data. It lacks specific details on sample sizes, expert qualifications, or detailed methodology commonly found in modern submissions.

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and data provenance:

• Bench Data: No specific sample size is mentioned. The nature of "bench data" typically implies internal testing, not necessarily a patient-based test set. Data provenance is not specified other than it being "bench data."
• Clinical Data: No specific sample size (number of patients or images) is mentioned for the clinical data. The data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not specified.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and qualifications of those experts:
The document does not provide any information regarding the number or qualifications of experts used to establish a ground truth for either the bench or clinical data. The assessment appears to be a direct comparison of image quality, rather than an expert- adjudicated assessment against a defined ground truth label.

3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
The document does not specify any adjudication method for the test set. It implies a direct comparison of enhanced visualization to the predicate device.

4. 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:

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done (or at least not reported in this document). The submission focuses on device equivalence, not on the improvement of human readers with AI assistance. The device is described as an "accessory" that provides "high contrast visualization," implying it produces enhanced images for clinicians to interpret, but not explicitly as an AI assistance tool for human readers in a quantitative MRMC sense.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

• Yes, in essence. The "bench data" and "clinical data" primarily assess the device's capability to produce images with enhanced visualization. The statement "The clinical data indicate that the system produces images with enhanced visualization of the blood vessels which are comparable to those produced by the predicate device" describes the algorithm's output (the enhanced images) directly, without explicitly mentioning a human reader's performance with or without that output. This is effectively a standalone assessment of the device's image generation capability.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used. Instead, the comparison is made against the output of the predicate device (Topcon IMAGEnet 640). The "ground truth" for demonstrating equivalence appears to be the visual quality and enhancement produced by the predicate device. For technical specifications, "ground truth" would be derived from physical measurements and calibrations.

7. The sample size for the training set:
The document does not mention any training set or the use of machine learning models that would require one. The "algorithm" described is for processing spectrally resolved images to produce a 2D image with high-contrast visualization, which sounds more like a signal processing or image processing algorithm rather than a machine learning algorithm requiring a separate training set.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
As no training set is mentioned, this information is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device