Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(125 days)
The LOGIQ E10s is intended for use by a qualified physician for ultrasound evaluation.
Specific clinical applications and exam types include: Fetal / Obstetrics; Abdominal (including Renal, Gynecology / Pelvic); Pediatric; Small Organ (Breast, Testes, Thyroid); Neonatal Cephalic; Adult Cephalic; Cardiac (Adult and Pediatric); Peripheral Vascular; Musculo-skeletal Conventional and Superficial; Urology (including Prostate); Transrectal; Transvaginal; Transesophageal and Intraoperative (Abdominal and Vascular).
Modes of operation include: B, M, PW Doppler, CW Doppler, Color Doppler, Color M Doppler, Power Doppler, Harmonic Imaging, Coded Pulse, 3D/4D Imaging mode, Elastography, Shear Wave Elastography, Attenuation Imaging and Combined modes: B/M, B/Color, B/PWD, B/Color/PWD, B/Power/PWD.
The LOGIQ E10s is intended to be used in a hospital or medical clinic.
The LOGIQ E10s is a full featured, Track 3, general purpose diagnostic ultrasound system which consists of a mobile console approximately 585 mm wide (keyboard), 991 mm deep and 1300 mm high that provides digital acquisition, processing and display capability. The user interface includes a computer keyboard, specialized controls, 12-inch high-resolution color touch screen and 23.8-inch High Contrast LED LCD monitor.
The provided text describes three AI features: Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0, Auto Aorta Measure Assistant, and Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant, along with a UGFF Clinical Study.
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details for each, where available:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
For Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0
| Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance | Meets Criteria? |
|---|---|---|
| Overall model detection accuracy (sensitivity and specificity): $\ge 80%$ (0.80) | Accuracy: 94.8% | Yes |
| Sensitivity (True Positive Rate): $\ge 80%$ (0.80) | Sensitivity: 0.91 | Yes |
| Specificity (True Negative Rate): $\ge 80%$ (0.80) | Specificity: 0.98 | Yes |
| DICE Similarity Coefficient (Segmentation Accuracy): $\ge 0.80$ | DICE score: 0.82 | Yes |
For Auto Aorta Measure Assistant
| Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance | Meets Criteria? |
|---|---|---|
| No explicit numerical acceptance criteria were provided for keystrokes or measurement accuracy. The study aims to demonstrate improvement in keystrokes and acceptable accuracy. The provided results are the performance reported without specific targets for acceptance. | Long View Aorta:- Average keystrokes: 4.132 (without AI) vs. 1.236 (with AI)- Average accuracy: 87.2% with 95% CI of +/- 1.98%- Average absolute error: 0.253 cm with 95% CI of 0.049 cm- Limits of Agreement: (-0.15, 0.60) with 95% CI of (-0.26, 0.71)Short View AP Measurement:- Average accuracy: 92.9% with 95% CI of +/- 2.02%- Average absolute error: 0.128 cm with 95% CI of 0.037 cm- Limits of Agreement: (-0.21, 0.36) with 95% CI of (-0.29, 0.45)Short View Trans Measurement:- Average accuracy: 86.9% with 95% CI of +/- 6.25%- Average absolute error: 0.235 cm with 95% CI of 0.110 cm- Limits of Agreement: (-0.86, 0.69) with 95% CI (-1.06, 0.92) | N/A |
For Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant
| Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance | Meets Criteria? |
|---|---|---|
| No explicit numerical acceptance criteria were provided for keystrokes or measurement accuracy. The study aims to demonstrate reduction in keystrokes and acceptable accuracy. The provided results are the performance reported without specific targets for acceptance. | - Average reduction in keystrokes (manual vs. AI): 1.62 +/- 0.375Keystrokes for Porta Hepatis measurement with segmentation scroll edit- Average accuracy: 80.56% with 95% CI of +/- 8.83%- Average absolute error: 0.91 mm with 95% CI of 0.45 mm- Limits of Agreement: (-1.96, 3.25) with 95% CI of (-2.85, 4.14)Porta Hepatis measurement accuracy without segmentation scroll edit- Average accuracy: 59.85% with 95% CI of +/- 17.86%- Average absolute error: 1.66 mm with 95% CI of 1.02 mm- Limits of Agreement: (-4.75, 4.37) with 95% CI of (-6.17, 5.79) | N/A |
For UGFF Clinical Study
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied by intent to demonstrate strong correlation) | Reported Device Performance | Meets Criteria? |
|---|---|---|
| Strong correlation between UFF values and MRI-PDFF (e.g., correlation coefficient $\ge 0.8$) | Original study: Correlation coefficient = 0.87Confirmatory study (US/EU): Correlation coefficient = 0.90(Confirmatory study (UGFF vs UDFF): Correlation coefficient = 0.88) | Yes |
| Acceptable Limits of Agreement with MRI-PDFF (e.g., small offset and LOA with high percentage of patients within LOA) | Original study: Offset = -0.32%, LOA = -6.0% to 5.4%, 91.6% patients within LOAConfirmatory study (US/EU): Offset = -0.1%, LOA = -3.6% to 3.4%, 95.0% patients within LOA | Yes |
| No statistically significant effect of BMI, SCD, and other demographic confounders on AC, BSC, and SNR measurements (Implied) | The results of the clinical study indicate that BMI, SCD, and other demographic confounders do not have a statistically significant effect on measurements of the AC, BSC, and SNR. | Yes |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0:
- Sample Size: 49 individual subjects (1186 annotation images)
- Data Provenance: Retrospective, from the USA (100%).
Auto Aorta Measure Assistant:
- Sample Size:
- Long View Aorta: 36 subjects
- Short View Aorta: 35 subjects
- Data Provenance: Retrospective, from Japan and USA.
Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant:
- Sample Size: 25 subjects
- Data Provenance: Retrospective, from USA (40%) and Japan (60%).
UGFF Clinical Study:
- Sample Size:
- Original study: 582 participants
- Confirmatory study (US/EU): 15 US patients and 5 EU patients (total 20)
- Confirmatory study (UGFF vs UDFF): 24 EU patients
- Data Provenance: Retrospective and Prospective implicitly (clinical study implies data collection).
- Original Study: Japan (Asian population)
- Confirmatory Study (US/EU): US and EU (demographic info unavailable for EU patients, US patients: BMI 21.0-37.5, SCD 13.9-26.9)
- Confirmatory Study (UGFF vs UDFF): EU
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0:
- Number of Experts: Not specified. The text mentions "Readers to ground truth the 'anatomy'".
- Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.
Auto Aorta Measure Assistant:
- Number of Experts: Not specified. The text mentions "Readers to ground truth the AP measurement..." and an "Arbitrator to select most accurate measurement among all readers." This implies multiple readers and a single arbitrator.
- Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.
Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant:
- Number of Experts: Not specified. The text mentions "Readers to ground truth the diameter..." and an "Arbitrator to select most accurate measurement among all readers." This implies multiple readers and a single arbitrator.
- Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.
UGFF Clinical Study:
- Number of Experts: Not applicable, as ground truth was established by MRI-PDFF measurements, not expert consensus on images.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0:
- Adjudication Method: Not explicitly described as a specific method (e.g., 2+1). The process mentions "Readers to ground truth" and then comparison to AI predictions, but no specific adjudication among multiple readers' initial ground truths.
Auto Aorta Measure Assistant:
- Adjudication Method: Implies an arbitrator-based method. "Arbitrator to select most accurate measurement among all readers." This suggests multiple readers provide measurements, and a single arbitrator makes the final ground truth selection.
Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant:
- Adjudication Method: Implies an arbitrator-based method. "Arbitrator to select most accurate measurement among all readers." Similar to the Aorta assistant.
UGFF Clinical Study:
- Adjudication Method: Not applicable. Ground truth was established by MRI-PDFF measurements.
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
Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0:
- MRMC Study: Not explicitly stated as a comparative effectiveness study showing human improvement. The study focuses on the algorithm's performance against ground truth.
- Effect Size (Human Improvement with AI): Not reported.
Auto Aorta Measure Assistant:
- MRMC Study: Yes, an implicit MRMC study comparing human performance with and without AI. Readers performed measurements with and without AI assistance.
- Effect Size (Human Improvement with AI):
- Long View Aorta (Keystrokes): Average keystrokes reduced from 4.132 (without AI) to 1.236 (with AI).
- Short View Aorta (Keystrokes): Average keystrokes reduced from 7.05 (without AI) to 2.307 (with AI).
- (No specific improvement in diagnostic accuracy for human readers with AI is stated, primarily focuses on efficiency via keystrokes).
Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant:
- MRMC Study: Yes, an implicit MRMC study comparing human performance with and without AI. Readers performed measurements with and without AI assistance.
- Effect Size (Human Improvement with AI):
- Porta Hepatis CBD (Keystrokes): Average reduction in keystrokes for measurements with AI vs. manually is 1.62 +/- 0.375.
- (No specific improvement in diagnostic accuracy for human readers with AI is stated, primarily focuses on efficiency via keystrokes).
UGFF Clinical Study:
- MRMC Study: No, this was a standalone algorithm performance study compared to a reference standard (MRI-PDFF) and a predicate device (UDFF). It did not involve human readers using the AI tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0:
- Standalone Performance: Yes. The reported accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and DICE score are for the algorithm's performance.
Auto Aorta Measure Assistant:
- Standalone Performance: Yes, implicitly. The "AI baseline measurement" was compared for accuracy against the arbitrator-selected ground truth. While keystrokes involved human interaction to use the AI, the measurement accuracy is an algorithm output.
Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant:
- Standalone Performance: Yes, implicitly. The "AI baseline measurement" was compared for accuracy against the arbitrator-selected ground truth.
UGFF Clinical Study:
- Standalone Performance: Yes. The study directly assesses the correlation and agreement of the UGFF algorithm's output with MRI-PDFF and another ultrasound-derived fat fraction algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used
Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0:
- Ground Truth Type: Expert consensus for anatomical visibility ("Readers to ground truth the 'anatomy' visible in static B-Mode image.")
Auto Aorta Measure Assistant:
- Ground Truth Type: Expert consensus from multiple readers, adjudicated by an arbitrator, for specific measurements ("Arbitrator to select most accurate measurement among all readers.")
Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant:
- Ground Truth Type: Expert consensus from multiple readers, adjudicated by an arbitrator, for specific measurements ("Arbitrator to select most accurate measurement among all readers.")
UGFF Clinical Study:
- Ground Truth Type: Outcomes data / Quantitative Reference Standard: MRI Proton Density Fat Fraction (MRI-PDFF %).
8. The sample size for the training set
Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0:
- Training Set Sample Size: Not specified beyond "The exams used for test/training validation purpose are separated from the ones used during training process".
Auto Aorta Measure Assistant:
- Training Set Sample Size: Not specified beyond "The exams used for regulatory validation purpose are separated from the ones used during model development process".
Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant:
- Training Set Sample Size: Not specified beyond "The exams used for regulatory validation purpose are separated from the ones used during model development process".
UGFF Clinical Study:
- Training Set Sample Size: Not specified. The study describes validation but not the training phase.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Auto Abdominal Color Assistant 2.0:
- Training Set Ground Truth: Not explicitly detailed, but implied to be similar to the test set ground truthing process: "Information extracted purely from Ultrasound B-mode images" and "Readers to ground truth the 'anatomy'".
Auto Aorta Measure Assistant:
- Training Set Ground Truth: Not explicitly detailed, but implied to be similar to the test set ground truthing process: "Information extracted purely from Ultrasound B-mode images" and "Readers to ground truth the AP measurement...".
Auto Common Bile Duct (CBD) Measure Assistant:
- Training Set Ground Truth: Not explicitly detailed, but implied to be similar to the test set ground truthing process: "Information extracted purely from Ultrasound B-mode images" and "Readers to ground truth the diameter...".
UGFF Clinical Study:
- Training Set Ground Truth: Not specified for the training set, but for the validation set, the ground truth was MRI-PDFF measurements.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1