Search Results

Restore PACS is a device that receives digital medical images and data from various sources (such as, MR scanners, CT Scanners, Digital Xray systems, computers, image gateways or other image sources). Images and other medical data can be communicated, processed, managed, manipulated, stored and displayed within the system and/or across computer networks at distributed locations. Typical users of this system are trained radiologists, technicians and nurses.

Restore PACS include features that receives digital medical images and data from various sources (such as, MR scanners, CT Scanners, Digital Xray systems, computers, image gateways or other image sources). Images and other medical data can be communicated, processed, managed, manipulated, stored and displayed within the system and/or across computer networks at distributed locations.

Restore PACS is designed to be deployed over TCP/IP networking infrastructure available in customer sites and utilizes commercially available hardware and operating systems. The system of Restore PACS does not generate any original medical images in the Restore PACS are received from DICOM compliant systems.

The provided text does not contain typical acceptance criteria for a medical device that involves an algorithm with measurable performance characteristics (like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy). Instead, the document describes the substantial equivalency of a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS), a software product. The "acceptance criteria" discussed are largely related to its functional performance and compatibility with different hardware and software configurations, rather than a clinical accuracy metric.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document frames "acceptance criteria" in terms of successful validation testing for various configurations and functionalities. It does not provide quantitative performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC as one might expect for an AI diagnostic device. Instead, the performance is described as meeting "predetermined acceptance criteria" and verifying "no impact on safety or efficacy" and "no additional risks."

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified. The document only mentions "the Restore PACS has been assessed and tested at the factory" and "Verification & Validation Test Plan was designed to evaluate all input functions, output functions, and actions performed." There is no mention of a specific number of cases, images, or patients used for testing.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. There is no information regarding the country of origin of any data used for testing, nor whether it was retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of a PACS, the testing would likely involve simulated or real medical imaging data, but details are absent.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The document states that "designated individuals performed all verification and validation activities," but their qualifications are not detailed. Standard PACS validation would typically involve IT professionals, medical imaging experts (radiologists, technicians), and engineers, but this is not explicitly stated.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. Given that the testing focused on functional verification and validation rather than diagnostic performance, an adjudication method for "ground truth" (in a clinical sense) is not described or likely applicable in the way it would be for an AI diagnostic algorithm.

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

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted or reported. This device is a PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System), which is an infrastructure for managing and displaying images, not an AI diagnostic algorithm designed to assist human readers in interpretation or improve their performance. Therefore, such a study would not be relevant for this device.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not applicable. The Restore PACS is not an "algorithm only" device in the diagnostic sense. It's a system for managing and displaying images that humans (radiologists, technicians, nurses) interact with. Its performance is evaluated on its functional capabilities (e.g., image communication, processing, storage, display) and lack of adverse impact on safety or efficacy, not on standalone diagnostic accuracy.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• Type of Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated as "ground truth" in the clinical sense. For this PACS device, the "ground truth" for the validation appears to be defined by functional requirements and specifications (e.g., does it correctly receive, store, display images as intended? Does it communicate properly across networks?). The "results of testing verified that there is no impact on safety or efficacy and that no additional risks have been identified" suggests validation against established functional and safety protocols, rather than clinical diagnostic ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This device is a PACS, a software system, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a training set of data.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device