Search Results

The WBR Half Dose is indicated for the acquisition, formatting and storage of scintigraphy camera output data. It is capable of processing and displaying the acquired information in traditional formats, as well as in pseudo three dimensional renderings, and in various forms of animated sequences, showing kinetic attributes of the image organs.

The WBR Half dose is a modification of labeling of the legally marketed device. The device is an image processing system, which is interfaced to gamma cameras, processes the cameras' acquired data utilizing parallel and non - parallel beams and produce high resolution images. The images can be transfered to any other PACS device, which is DICOM or Interfile compatible. The modified labeling claims that, as far as the acquired information density is maintained. the same image quality is achieved either by fast acquisition or by reduced dose acquisition modes.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the WBR Half Dose device, which is an image processing system for gamma cameras. It primarily focuses on the regulatory aspects, device description, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Crucially, the document does NOT contain a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment relevant to the device's image processing claims.

The safety and effectiveness section vaguely states: "Bench and clinical data demonstrate that reconstructed images are equivalent or of better resolution comparing to images that are reconstructed by filter back projection. No adverse affects have been detected." This is a general statement and not a detailed study.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is what can be inferred or explicitly stated based on the text, with clear indications of missing information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly define acceptance criteria in a quantitative manner. The closest statement regarding performance is a qualitative claim of equivalence or improvement:

Detailed Study Information (Much of this information is missing from the provided text)

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

   • Sample size: Not specified in the document. The text only mentions "Bench and clinical data."
   • Data provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

   • Number of experts: Not specified.
   • Qualifications of experts: Not specified.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not specified.

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:

   • The document does not mention an MRMC study. The device is primarily an "image processing system" that claims "high resolution images" and "equivalent or of better resolution." It's not described as an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers, but rather a system for generating images. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" as typically understood in MRMC studies for diagnostic AI, does not directly apply to this device's description.

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

   • The claims around "equivalent or of better resolution" could imply a standalone evaluation of image quality, but the specifics of how this was measured (e.g., against a reference standard or objective metrics) and whether human interpretation was completely excluded from the evaluation are not provided. The device itself is an algorithm only in the sense that it processes data to produce images without direct human intervention in the processing step.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Not specified. Given the claim is about "resolution," the ground truth would likely relate to objective image quality metrics or potentially human perception of image quality. Pathology or outcomes data are typically used for diagnostic accuracy claims, which are not the primary focus here.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Not specified. The document describes a "Special 510(k) Submission" for a "modification of labeling of the legally marketed device." It's an "image processing system," and while such systems involve algorithms, the text does not indicate that it uses machine learning/AI models that require a separate "training set" in the modern sense. It implies traditional image reconstruction algorithms.

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

   • Not applicable/Not specified, as a "training set" in the context of modern machine learning is not explicitly mentioned or implied. If it refers to data used for algorithm development/tuning, the method for establishing ground truth for such data is not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The WBR Xact.cardiac & Xpress.cardiac is indicated for the acquisition, formatting and storage of scintigraphy camera output data. They are capable of processing and displaying the acquired information in traditional formats, as well as in pseudo three dimensional renderings, and in various forms of animated sequences, showing kinetic attributes of the image organs.

The Xact.cardiac & Xpress.cardiac are image processing systems, which are interfaced to gamma cameras. Gamma camera cardiac data is reconstructed by the Xact.cardiac. . Gamma camera cardiac, fast acquired, data is reconstructed by the Xpress.cardiac. The Xact.cardiac & Xpress.cardiac utilize parallel and non parallel beams and produce high resolution images. The images can be transferred to any other PACS device, which is DICOM or Interfile compatible.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Xact.cardiac & Xpress.cardiac device:

Based on the provided 510(k) summary and FDA clearance letter, specific acceptance criteria and detailed study data (like sample sizes for test and training sets, exact ground truth establishment, or MRMC studies) are not explicitly provided. The document is a regulatory submission summary rather than a detailed scientific publication of a study.

The submission focuses on declaring substantial equivalence to a predicate device, and the "Safety & Effectiveness" section primarily states that the device was designed, verified, and validated according to 21 CFR 820.30 regulations. It generally claims that "Bench and clinical data demonstrate that reconstructed images are equivalent or of better resolution comparing to images that are reconstructed by filter back-projection. No adverse affects have been detected."

Given the limitations of the provided text, I will address each point based on what can be inferred or is directly stated, and explicitly state when information is not available in the document.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details:

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "bench and clinical data" but does not quantify the sample size of the clinical data used for validation.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Given UltraSPECT Ltd. is based in Haifa, Israel, it's possible some data originated there, but this is not confirmed. It's also not stated if the data was retrospective or prospective.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

   • Not explicitly stated. The document does not provide details on ground truth establishment or the involvement of experts in the validation process.

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

   • Not explicitly stated. There is no information provided about any adjudication methods used for the test set.

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

   • Not explicitly stated. The document does not mention a multi-reader, multi-case study nor does it discuss human reader improvement with or without AI assistance. The device is an image processing system for reconstruction, not explicitly an AI-assisted diagnostic tool in the sense of a standalone AI system for interpretation.

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

   • Implied: The device is an "image processing system" that "reconstructs" images. The claim is about the quality of the reconstructed images being equivalent or better. This suggests the primary "study" (clinical data) would assess the output images themselves, likely in a standalone manner comparing them to images generated by the predicate or traditional methods. However, a formal "standalone performance" study with specific metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity for a diagnostic task) is not detailed. The focus is on image quality.

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

   • Not explicitly stated. Given the claim is about "resolution," the "ground truth" for image quality assessment would likely involve objective measures of resolution (e.g., phantom studies, edge sharpness, contrast-to-noise ratio) and/or subjective assessments by experts comparing images, rather than a diagnostic ground truth like pathology for identifying disease. The document states "reconstructed images are equivalent or of better resolution comparing to images that are reconstructed by filter back-projection," suggesting a comparison of image characteristics.

7. The sample size for the training set

   • Not explicitly stated. The document does not provide details about a training set. As an image reconstruction algorithm, it might involve algorithm development and tuning without a distinct "training set" in the machine learning sense, or if it did, the size is not disclosed.

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

   • Not explicitly stated. Since information on a training set itself is absent, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device