Search Results

The SCOUT MD Reflector is intended to be placed percutaneously in soft tissue (>30 days) to mark a biopsy site or a soft tissue site intended for surgical removal. Using imaging guidance (such as ultrasound, MRI, or radiography) or aided by non-imaging guidance (SCOUT MD System) the SCOUT MD Reflector is located and surgically removed with the target tissue. The SCOUT MD System is intended only for the non-imaging detection and localization of the SCOUT MD Reflector that has been implanted in a soft tissue biopsy site or a soft tissue site intended for surgical removal.

The SCOUT MD Delivery System is used to implant the preassembled SCOUT MD Reflector. The needle of the Delivery System is percutaneously advanced into tissue to the site to be marked for biopsy or surgical removal. Needle placement is confirmed under imaging technique (radiographic, ultrasound). The Reflector (tissue marker) is deployed at the target site and the Delivery Device is removed from the patient and discarded. The Reflector, a passive implant, remains in situ and, if surgical removal of the target tissue is necessary, the Reflector is located at the time of surgery (intraoperatively) by the SCOUT MD Surgical Guidance System. The SCOUT MD Guide/Handpiece connected to the SCOUT MD Console is used to detect the SCOUT MD Reflector but it does not contact tissue. SCOUT MD Guides are always used while inside the SCOUT Guide Sheath. When the SCOUT MD System detects the Reflector, the Console emits audible feedback that increases in cadence as the Guide is placed closer to the Reflector. The distance between the distal end of the Guide and the detected Reflector, in millimeters, is displayed on the Console. If necessary, the Reflector is removed from the patient during a subsequent surgical procedure along with the tissue of interest or the Reflector can be left in-situ.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the SCOUT MD Surgical Guidance System. It aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the SAVI Scout Reflector and SAVI Scout System.

However, the document does not contain the detailed performance data, acceptance criteria, or study methodologies that would typically be described in a clinical study report for proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria. Instead, it lists the types of tests performed to support substantial equivalence.

Therefore, I cannot extract answers to many of your specific questions regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test/training sets, ground truth establishment, expert roles, and MRMC studies, as this information is not present in the provided text.

The document implicitly "proves" the device meets acceptance criteria by stating that the results of safety and performance tests demonstrate the device is substantially equivalent to the predicate, and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. This is the core argument for a 510(k) submission.

Here's an attempt to answer what can be inferred or directly stated from the provided text, with clear indications where the information is not available.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Inferred/Stated)

While explicit numerical acceptance criteria are not detailed, the summary implies that the device performance met the standards for demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate. The performance "tests" enumerated are implicitly the method by which acceptance was determined.

Study Details (Information from the Text):

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

   • Sample Size: Not specified. The document lists types of performance tests, but not the sample sizes used for those tests (e.g., number of devices tested, number of simulated deployments, or any human subject data).
   • Data Provenance: Not specified. The document does not mention the country of origin of any data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of the tests listed (e.g., integrity, functional, electrical safety, biocompatibility, simulated use), these are typically bench or lab-based engineering verification and validation activities, not clinical studies with human subjects in the traditional sense for AI/imaging devices.

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

   • This information is not provided. The listed tests are primarily engineering and bench testing, not clinical performance studies requiring expert ground truth establishment in the context of diagnostic accuracy. If "Simulated Use" involved expert assessment, it's not detailed.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. This typically refers to clinical image interpretation studies, which are not detailed here.

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 evidence of an MRMC study. This device (SCOUT MD Surgical Guidance System) is an implantable marker and a localization system. It does not appear to be an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device that would assist human readers in interpreting images. Its function is to non-imaging detect and localize an implanted reflector.

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

   • The "SCOUT MD System is intended only for the non-imaging detection and localization of the SCOUT MD Reflector." The functional and performance tests mentioned (deployment, detection, accuracy) would constitute standalone performance evaluation of the algorithm and system components. The specific details of how thoroughly this was tested are not explicitly described beyond listing the types of tests.

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

   • For the engineering and functional tests described (e.g., dimensional accuracy, detection range accuracy, material properties), the "ground truth" would be engineering specifications, physical measurements, and established scientific standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM standards for materials, sterilization, electrical safety). There is no mention of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data as ground truth, as these tests are not related to diagnostic accuracy.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. The document describes a "Surgical Guidance System" that non-imaging detects an implanted marker. There is no indication that this system uses machine learning or requires a 'training set' in the context of AI model development. The principle of operation is described as measuring the relative strength of RF reflective energy.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. As there's no mention of a traditional 'training set' for an AI model, this question is not relevant to the information provided.

Ask a specific question about this device