Search Results

MU Plus! is a quality assurance tool for monitor unit calculations performed in radiation oncology clinics. MU Plus! is designed to be used as a verification of treatment planning derived monitor unit settings or hand generated monitor unit settings. Monitor unit calculations for linear accelerators are performed by various staff of radiation oncology clinics, including medical physicists, dosimetrists, and radiation therapists. MU Plus! also contains a diode measurement verification program which predicts an expected diode reading based on a formalism similar to the monitor unit calculations.

The MU Plus! monitor unit calculation verification program is designed to operate on an IBM compatible personal computer using Windows 95. Windows NT 4.0, or higher operating system. It is designed to operate independently of any radiation treatment planning system. It does not connect to or control any radiation hardware device. It is designed to verify monitor unit calculations for accelerator produced photons and electrons. It also calculates expected diode readings based on clinical data entered by the user.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the MU Plus! device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for MU Plus!

Based on the provided 510(k) summary, the MU Plus! device aimed to verify monitor unit (MU) calculations for radiation treatment, demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and manual lookup methods.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided 510(k) summary does not explicitly state specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "MUs must match within X% accuracy"). Instead, it reports qualitative findings of "very closely matched" results. The underlying acceptance criterion appears to be that the MU Plus! calculations for monitor settings and diode readings should align very closely with those derived from predicate devices and manual lookup methods.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact number of test cases or the size of the test set. It mentions "Standard test cases were used on both systems" for comparisons with predicate devices and "All tests matched very closely" for comparisons with manual lookup. Without access to the Appendices (A, B, C, D), the precise sample size for the test set cannot be determined from this text.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of a software verification tool, the "standard test cases" likely refer to generated or pre-existing clinical scenarios/data rather than patient-specific data from a particular country or time frame.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not explicitly stated. For the "manual lookup" comparison, the implication is that qualified professionals (e.g., medical physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, as mentioned in the Indications for Use) would perform these manual calculations. However, the document doesn't detail their involvement in establishing the formal "ground truth" for the test set with specific qualifications. The predicate devices themselves essentially serve as a form of "ground truth" for the comparative tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). The "ground truth" for comparison was established either by:
* The calculations from established predicate devices (K914698, K980379).
* Manual lookup calculations.
Given that the reported results are simply "matched very closely," it suggests a direct comparison rather than a consensus-based adjudication process among multiple human readers for discrepancies.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly described. The study focused on the performance of the algorithm itself against predicate devices and manual calculations, rather than assessing an improvement in human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone study was presented. The entire description of the "Non-clinical tests" details the performance of the MU Plus! algorithm in isolation. It compares the algorithm's output directly against:

• The output of predicate devices.
• The results of manual lookup methods.
  This demonstrates the algorithm's performance without a human-in-the-loop interaction for the actual calculation process itself, though a human would ultimately use the verification output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was a combination of:

• Predicate Device Output: The monitor unit calculations generated by two legally marketed predicate devices (K&S Associates, PC Setup Program (K914698) and SSGI, Prowess Pro-Sim (K980379)).
• Manual Calculations/Lookup: Results obtained through traditional, accepted manual methods for calculating monitor units.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size. As a calculation verification program, it uses established physical formalisms (equations) rather than machine learning models that typically require a training set. The "formalisms" described (TMR * Sp * Sc * WF * TF * OAFx * OAFy * ISF * Output, etc.) are deterministic equations, not learned parameters.

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

Since a training set in the machine learning sense is not applicable to this type of deterministic software, there is no description of how ground truth for a training set was established. The software's "knowledge" or "training" comes from the implementation of established physics formalisms and equations used in radiation therapy.

Ask a specific question about this device