Search Results

The X-VIEW, IMAGEN, a panoramic x-ray imaging system with cephalometric capabilities, is an extraoral source x-ray system intended for dental radiographic examination of the teeth, jaw, and oral structures, specifically for panoramic examinations and implantology and for TMI studies and cephalometry. It has the capability of using cone beam volumetric technology techniques to generate dento-maxillofacial 3D images. The device uses a cone shaped x-ray beam projected onto a flat panel detector, and the examined volume image is reconstructed to be viewed via 3D viewing stations. 2D Images are obtained using the standard narrow beam technique. The device is to be operated and used by dentists, radiologists and other legally qualified health care professionals.

X-VIEW, IMAGEN is a 3-dimensional CBCT system that allows the execution of all commonly used x-rays in both dental and orthodontic fields (excluding intraoral radiographs) and also allows the acquisition of tomographic radiographs, or volumetric 3D. It uses CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) with a flat panel detector to provide high-definition volumetric images.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study information for the X-VIEW, IMAGEN device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly define acceptance criteria in a quantitative manner (e.g., minimum sensitivity, specificity, or resolution thresholds for clinical performance). Instead, the acceptance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical specifications and adherence to safety and performance standards.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document mentions that a "Clinical Evaluation report in which volumetric reconstructive images of a human subject were acquired." This indicates a very limited sample size of one human subject for the clinical evaluation component and is explicitly stated as one human subject.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. It implies a prospective test set since it describes images being "acquired."

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 ground truth or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with X years of experience). The clinical evaluation report simply states that "all test results were satisfactory," implying an internal assessment rather than an independent expert review with explicit ground truth labeling.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set.

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

There is no indication that a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, nor is there any mention of human readers improving with or without AI assistance. The device is an imaging system, and the evaluation focuses on its technical performance and equivalence to predicates, not on the impact of AI on human reader performance.

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

This question is not directly applicable in the typical sense of AI algorithms. The "device" here is a hardware imaging system (X-VIEW, IMAGEN) with associated imaging processing software (OnDemand3D). The evaluation is of the imaging system's ability to acquire and reconstruct images, not of a standalone AI algorithm to interpret images. The performance metrics (MTF, DQE, Dynamic Range) relate to the detector's standalone technical performance as an imaging component.

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

The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used for the clinical evaluation. Given the nature of a CBCT system, the "satisfactory" test results for images of a human subject likely imply that the images were deemed diagnostically acceptable and of sufficient quality for their intended use by the evaluating party, possibly against known anatomical features or expected image characteristics, but it doesn't specify a formal ground truth like pathology or expert consensus on clinical findings.

8. The sample size for the training set

No training set is mentioned or implied for the evaluation of this device. The X-VIEW, IMAGEN is an imaging acquisition system. Its evaluation focused on hardware specifications, compliance with standards, and a limited clinical evaluation, not on the performance of a machine learning model that would require a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable, as no training set is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device