Search Results

uOmnispace.MR is a software solution intended to be used for viewing, manipulating and analyzing medical images. It supports interpretation and evaluation of examinations within healthcare institutions. It has the following additional indications:

The uOmnispace.MR Stitching is intended to create full-format images from overlapping MR volume data sets acquired at multiple stages.

The uOmnispace.MR Dynamic application is intended to provide a general postprocessing tool for time course studies.

The uOmnispace.MR MRS (MR Spectroscopy) is intended to evaluate the molecule constitution and spatial distribution of cell metabolism. It provides a set of tools to view, process, and analyze the complex MRS data. This application supports the analysis for both SVS (Single Voxel Spectroscopy) and CSI (Chemical Shift Imaging) data.

The uOmnispace.MR MAPs application is intended to provide a number of arithmetic and statistical functions for evaluating dynamic processes and images. These functions are applied to the grayscale values of medical images.

The uOmnispace.MR Breast Evaluation application provides the user a tool to calculate parameter maps from contrast-enhanced time-course images.

The uOmnispace.MR Brain Perfusion application is intended to allow the visualization of temporal variations in the dynamic susceptibility time series of MR datasets.

· MR uOmnispace.MR Vessel Analysis is intended to provide a tool for viewing, manipulating, and evaluating MR vascular images.

The uOmnispace.MR DCE analysis is intended to view, manipulate, and evaluate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI images.

The uOmnispace.MR United Neuro is intended to view, manipulate MR neurological images.

■ The uOmnispace.MR Cardiac Function is intended to view, evaluate functional analysis of cardiac MR images.

The uOmnispace.MR Flow Analysis is intended to view, evaluate flow analysis of flow MR images.

The uOmnispace.MR is a post-processing software based on the uOmnispace platform (cleared in K230039) for viewing, manipulating, evaluating and analyzing MR images, can run alone or with other advanced commercially cleared applications.

This proposed device contains the following applications:

• uOmnispace.MR Stitching
• uOmnispace.MR Dynamic
• uOmnispace.MR MRS
• uOmnispace.MR MAPs
• uOmnispace.MR Breast Evaluation
• . uOmnispace.MR Brain Perfusion
• uOmnispace.MR Vessel Analysis
• uOmnispace.MR DCE Analysis
• uOmnispace.MR United Neuro
• uOmnispace.MR Cardiac Analysis
• uOmnispace.MR Flow Analysis

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: 114 samples from 114 different patients.
• Data Provenance: The data includes patients of various genders (35 Male, 20 Female, 59 Unknown), ages (5 between 14-25, 12 between 25-40, 22 between 40-60, 13 between 60-79, 62 Unknown), and ethnicities (50 Europe, 53 Asia, 11 USA). The data was acquired using MR scanners from various manufacturers: UIH (58), GE (2), Philips (2), Siemens (52), and with different magnetic field strengths: 1.5T (23), 3.0T (41), 50 Unknown. The text does not explicitly state if the data was retrospective or prospective, but the mention of a "deep learning-based Automatic ventricular segmentation Algorithm for the LV&RV Contour Segmentation feature" and "The performance testing for deep learning-based Automatic ventricular segmentation Algorithm was performed on 114 subjects...during the product development" implies a retrospective study using existing data to validate the developed algorithm.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

The test set's ground truth was established by comparing the proposed device's results with those of the predicate device. The text does not explicitly state that human experts established the ground truth for the test set by manually segmenting the images for direct comparison against the algorithm's output. Instead, it seems the predicate device's output serves as the "ground truth" for the comparison of the new device's algorithm.

However, for the training ground truth, the following was stated:

• Number of Experts: Two cardiologists.
• Qualifications: Both cardiologists had "more than 10 years of experience each."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The study does not describe an adjudication method for the test set in the conventional sense of multiple human readers independently assessing the cases. Instead, the comparison is made between the proposed device's algorithm output and the predicate device's output.

For the training ground truth, the following adjudication method was used:

• Manual tracing was performed by an experienced user.
• Validation of these contours was done by two independent experts (more than 10 years experience).
• If there was a disagreement, a consensus between the experts was reached.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done to assess how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance. The study focuses on comparing the proposed device's algorithm performance directly against a predicate device's cardiac function application based on the Dice coefficient.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, a standalone performance study was done for the "deep learning-based Automatic ventricular segmentation Algorithm" for the LV&RV Contour Segmentation feature. The device's algorithm output was directly compared to the output of the predicate device's cardiac function application using the Dice coefficient.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the test set, the "ground truth" for comparison was the output of the cardiac function application of the predicate device.

For the training set, the ground truth was expert consensus based on manual tracing by an experienced user and validated by two independent cardiologists with over 10 years of experience.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document states: "The training data used for the training of the cardiac ventricular segmentation algorithm is independent of the data used to test the algorithm." However, it does not provide the specific sample size for the training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

The ground truth for the training set was established through manual annotation and expert consensus:

• It was "manually drawn on short axis slices in diastole and systole by two cardiologists with more than 10 years of experience each."
• "Manual tracing of the cardiac was performed by an experienced user."
• "The validation of these contours was done by two independent expert (more than 10 years) in this domain."
• "If there is a disagreement, a consensus between the experts was done."

Ask a specific question about this device