Search Results

Quantib™ Brain is a non-invasive medical imaging processing application that is intended for automatic labeling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of segmentable brain structures from a set of magnetic resonance (MR) images. The Quantib™ Brain output consists of segmentations, visualizations and volumetric measurements of grey matter (GM), white matter (WM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The output also visualizes and quantifies white matter hyperintensity (WMH) candidates. Users need to review and if necessary, edit WMH candidates using the provided tools, before validation of the WMHs. It is intended to provide the trained medical professional with complementary information for the evaluation and assessment of MR brain images and to aid the trained medical professional in quantitative reporting. Quantib™ Brain is a post-processing plugin for the GE Advantage Workstation (AW 4.7) or AW Server (AWS 3.2) platforms.

Quantib™ Brain is post-processing analysis software for the GE Advantage Workstation (AW 4.7) and AW Server (AWS 3.2) platforms using Volume Viewer Apps. 13.0 Ext 4 (or higher). It is intended for automatic labeling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of identifiable brain structures from magnetic resonance images (a 3D T1-weighted MR image, with an additional T2-weighted FLAIR MR image for white matter hyperintensities (WMH) segmentation). The segmentation system relies on a number of atlases each consisting of a 3D T1-weighted MR image and a label map dividing the MR image into different tissue segments. Quantib™ Brain provides quantitative information on both the absolute and relative volume of the segmented regions. The automatic WMH segmentation is to be reviewed and if necessary, edited by the user before validation of the segmentation, after which volumetric information is accessible. Longitudinal analysis can be performed for the brain tissue segmentation and WMH seqmentation in order to compare multiple exams of an individual patient. Quantib Brain is intended to provide the trained medical professional with complementary information for the evaluation and assessment of MR brain images and to aid the radiology specialist in quantitative reporting.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details for QuantibTM Brain 1.3 based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Note: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria prior to the study. The reported performance is the outcome, and it is presented as demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device, implying these values were deemed acceptable.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Set:

• Brain Volumetry (GM, WM, CSF, ICV):
  • Sample Size: 33 3DT1w MR images.
  • Data Provenance: The set was "carefully selected to include data from multiple vendors and a series of representative scan settings." No specific countries of origin are mentioned, nor is it specified if the data was retrospective or prospective, though "carefully selected" and "representative" often point to a retrospective collection aimed at diversity.
• White Matter Hyperintensities (WMH):
  • Sample Size: 45 3DT1w images (7 contrast-enhanced, all with corresponding T2w FLAIR images).
  • Data Provenance: This set also "represented various scan settings." Similar to the brain volumetry data, specific countries or retrospective/prospective nature are not detailed.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth:

• The document states that "WMHs were manually segmented on the T2w FLAIR images" and "relative volumes ... were compared to relative volumes derived from manual segmentations and to manual segmentations".
• It does not specify the number of experts involved in these manual segmentations or their qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience").

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set:

• The document does not provide any information on the adjudication method used for establishing ground truth manual segmentations (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none). It simply states "manual segmentations."

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

• No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not reported.
• The study focuses on the comparison of the algorithm's performance against manual segmentations, not on how human readers' performance might improve with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study:

• Yes, a standalone performance study was performed. The reported Dice indices and absolute differences in relative volumes directly measure the algorithm's performance (segmentation and quantification) against ground truth manual segmentations, without human-in-the-loop interaction for the reported metrics.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth used was expert manual segmentation.
  • For brain volumetry (GM, WM, CSF, ICV), the automated segmentations and relative volumes were compared to manual segmentations.
  • For WMH, the algorithm's output was compared to WMHs "manually segmented on the T2w FLAIR images."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not provide information on the sample size used for the training set. It only describes the test sets.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established:

• The document does not provide information on how the ground truth for the training set was established. It only refers to the "segmentation system relies on a number of atlases" but doesn't detail their origin or how their ground truth labels were created for training purposes.

Ask a specific question about this device