Search Results

Bunkerhill MAC is a software device intended for use in detecting presence and estimating quantity of mitral annulus calcification for adult patients aged 40 years and above. The device automatically analyzes non-gated, non-contrast chest computed tomography (CT) images collected during clinical care and outputs the region of interest (intended for informational purposes only) and quantification of detected calcium.

The device-generated quantification can be viewed in the patient report at the discretion of the physician, and the physician also has the option of viewing the device-generated calcium region of interest in a diagnostic image viewer. The subject device output in no way replaces the original patient report or the original non-gated, non-contrast CT scan; both are still available to be viewed and used at the discretion of the physician.

The device is intended to provide information to the physician to provide assistance during review of the patient's case. Results of the subject device are not intended to be used on a stand-alone basis and are solely intended to aid and provide information to the physician. In all cases, further action taken on a patient should only come at the recommendation of the physician after further reviewing the patient's results.

Bunkerhill MAC is a software as a medical device (SaMD) product that interfaces with compatible and commercially available computed tomography (CT) systems. Bunkerhill MAC detects, localizes, and quantifies mitral annulus calcification in non-gated, non-contrast chest CT studies. The core features of the product are:

• Detection of mitral annulus calcification at an Agatston-equivalent score threshold of 0 AU.
• Quantification of the overall mitral annulus calcification burden in the form of an estimated Agatston Score up to 5000 Agatston-equivalent units
• Localization of estimated calcium burden in the form of circular region of interest applied to a copy of the original CT scan.

Here's a detailed breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the Bunkerhill MAC device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a number of cases, but referred to as "the pivotal dataset."
   • Data Provenance: "curated from multiple sites across three geographical regions in the United States." (Retrospective study).

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

   • The document states "agreement of the device output compared to the established reference standard." It does not explicitly state the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing this "established reference standard." It only refers to "clinical literature in high impact journals that investigate the inter-reader agreement of manual segmentation" as informing the acceptance criteria.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document does not explicitly state an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing the ground truth of the test set. It refers to an "established reference standard."

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:

   • No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with AI assistance versus human readers without AI assistance was not conducted or reported in this document. The study was a "stand-alone retrospective study for detection, localization and agreement of the device output compared to the established reference standard."

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

   • Yes, a standalone study was performed. The document explicitly states: "The Bunkerhill MAC performance was validated in a stand-alone retrospective study for detection, localization and agreement of the device output compared to the established reference standard."

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • The ground truth was an "established reference standard" which was used for comparison against the device's output. The document implies this reference standard is based on non-gated CT reference measurements and potentially "manual segmentation" informed by clinical literature. It does not explicitly state pathology confirmation or direct outcomes data as the primary ground truth.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The sample size for the training set is not provided in the document.

8. How the ground truth for the 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 performance validation on a "pivotal dataset" (test set).

Ask a specific question about this device