Search Results

RhythmAnalytics is a software application for the assessment of cardiac arrhythmias using single-lead ECG data in subjects over 18 years of age. It is intended for use by a healthcare solution integrator to build web or mobile applications to let qualified healthcare professionals review and confirm the analytic result. The product supports downloading and analysing data recorded in compatible formats from any FDA cleared device used for the arrhythmia diagnostics such as Holter, event recorder, or other similar devices when of the rhythm is necessary. RhythmAnalytics can also be electronically interfaced, and perform analysis with data transferred from other computer based ECG systems, such as an ECG management system. RhythmAnalytics provides ECG signal processing and analysis, QRS and Ventricular Ectopic Beat detection, QRS feature extraction, interval measurement, heart rate measurement, and rhythm analysis. RhythmAnalytics is not for use in life supporting or sustaining systems or ECG monitor and Alarm devices.

The product can be integrated into medical devices. In this case, the medical device manufacturer will identify the indication for use depending on the application of their device.

RhythmAnalytics interpretation results are not intended to be the sole means of diagnosis. It is offered to physicians and clinicians on an advisory basis only in conjunction with the physician's knowledge of ECG patterns, patient background, clinical history, symptoms, and other diagnostic information.

RhythmAnalytics consists of (1) A web application programming interface (API) which an authentic user to upload single-lead ECG data and reports ECG interpretation results, and (2) An automated proprietary algorithm, i.e., cardiac beats/arrhythmias detection which measures and analyzes ECG data to provide qualified healthcare professional supportive information for review.

RhythmAnalytics is only intended to analyze recordings performed on adults (over the age of 18). RhythmAnalytics works in the following sequence:

• Accept uploading digital ECG files via secure API;
• Analyse the uploaded ECG using RhythmAnalytics proprietary algorithm, which detects cardiac beats/arrhythmias and intervals including:
  • Heart rate determination
  • RR Interval measurements
• ORS
• Non-paced arrhythmias
• Non-paced ventricular arrhythmia calls
• Ventricular ectopic beats
• RhythmAnalytics returns the interpretation result to be reviewed by a qualified healthcare professional.

The provided text describes the RhythmAnalytics device and its clearance by the FDA. Let's break down the information to address your specific questions about acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with specific numerical thresholds for metrics like sensitivity or specificity side-by-side with reported performance. Instead, it states that "Performance testing included the evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative values. All clinical input requirements were validated against a gold standard." It also mentions "No residual anomalies appeared during verification and software validation tests." and that "All software validation testing was completed successfully and met all requirements."

While the document confirms these metrics were evaluated and requirements were met, it does not provide the specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "Sensitivity must be >90%") nor the reported numerical performance values (e.g., "Achieved Sensitivity: 92%").

Therefore, for question 1, I can only state what the document says was evaluated, but not the specific quantitative details.

Let's address the remaining questions based on the provided text:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the test set for performance evaluation (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) nor does it specify the data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only mentions "All clinical input requirements were validated against a gold standard."

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set, nor their specific qualifications. It only states that validation was performed "against a gold standard."

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

The document does not specify any adjudication method used for establishing the ground truth of the test set. It only refers to a "gold standard."

5. 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

The document does not mention a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study. The device is described as providing "supportive information for review" to "qualified healthcare professionals" and its interpretation results "are not intended to be the sole means of diagnosis." This suggests it's an assistive tool, but no study on human-AI collaboration performance or effect size is detailed.

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

Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was done. The "Summary of Performance Testing" section states, "Performance testing included the evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative values. All clinical input requirements were validated against a gold standard." This indicates the algorithm's performance was assessed independently against a "gold standard."

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The document explicitly states that "All clinical input requirements were validated against a gold standard." However, it does not specify the precise nature of this "gold standard" (e.g., whether it was expert consensus, pathology, or another form of definitive diagnosis).

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not provide the sample size used for the training set of the proprietary algorithm.

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. It only refers to the algorithm as an "automated proprietary algorithm, i.e., cardiac beats/arrhythmias detection which measures and analyses ECG data."

Ask a specific question about this device