Search Results

The Zargis Acoustic Cardioscan, (ZAC), is an electronic auscultatory device, intended to provide support to the physician in the evaluation of patients' heart sounds.

The product acquires and records the acoustic signals of the heart and analyzes these signals. The analysis procedure will identify specific heart sounds that may be present. Identified sounds include S1, S2, and suspected murmurs. The device is indicated for use in a clinical setting, by a physician or by trained personnel who are acting on the orders of a licensed physician. It is not intended as a sole means of diagnosis.

The interpretations of heart sounds offered by the Zargis Acoustic Cardioscan are only significant when used in conjunction with physician over-read as well as consideration of all other relevant patient data.

The ZAC is an electronic auscultatory device intended to acquire, record, and analyze heart sounds.

The complete system is comprised of an electronic stethoscope, a notebook computer, software, a printer and an isolation transformer.

The provided text describes the Zargis Acoustic Cardioscan (ZAC) device and its 510(k) submission (K060197). However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study results, or the methodological specifics requested in your prompt (e.g., sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance details, or types of ground truth used to define criteria or evaluate performance).

The documentation states that:

• "non-clinical performance testing has been conducted to demonstrate the performance of the ZAC device and that it meets its intended use."
• "A comprehensive list of verification and validation testing was performed..."
• "Software verification... was performed at the module and system level."
• "The integrated ZAC system was further evaluated to verify the graphic user interface software and the ZAC system as an integrated product."
• "Validation of the ZAC was performed to ensure that the ZAC device consistently fulfills its intended use and the needs of the user. A clinical software validation was performed to insure the performance of the enhanced software algorithm."

Despite these statements, the document does not elaborate on the specific metrics, thresholds, or outcomes of these tests that would constitute 'acceptance criteria' or 'reported device performance' in a measurable way. It largely focuses on substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K031517, K042128) based on design, technological characteristics, indications for use, and a general assertion of performance testing.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer most of your detailed questions based on the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Detailed Study Information

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not specified in the provided text.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not specified in the provided text.
3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not specified in the provided text.
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 specified in the provided text. The device is intended to "provide support to the physician" and "is not intended as a sole means of diagnosis," implying an AI-assisted workflow, but no MRMC study or effect size is reported.
5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The phrase "The interpretations of heart sounds offered by the Zargis Acoustic Cardioscan are only significant when used in conjunction with physician over-read as well as consideration of all other relevant patient data" suggests that standalone performance, if evaluated, was not considered sufficient for clinical use. No specific standalone performance metrics are provided.
6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not specified in the provided text. It only mentions "identif[ying] specific heart sounds that may be present. Identified sounds include S1, S2, and suspected murmurs." How the "presence" of these sounds was definitively established for validation is not detailed.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not specified in the provided text.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not specified in the provided text.

In summary, the provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence and general safety/performance rather than providing detailed clinical study results with specific quantitative metrics and methodologies.

Ask a specific question about this device