Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Vista OS is an accessory to 1.5T and 3.0T whole-body magnetic resonance diagnostic devices (MRDD). It is intended to operate alongside, and in parallel with, the existing MR console to acquire traditional, real-time and accelerated images.

Vista OS software controls the MR scanner to acquire, reconstruct and display static and dynamic transverse, coronal, sagittal, and oblique cross-sectional images that display the internal structures and/or functions of the entire body. The images produced reflect the spatial distribution of nuclei exhibiting magnetic resonance. The magnetic resonance properties that determine image appearance are proton density, spin-lattice relaxation time (T1), spin-spin relaxation time (T2) and flow. When interpreted by a trained physician, these images provide information that may assist in the determination of a diagnosis.

Vista OS is intended for use as an accessory to the following MRI systems:

Manufacturers: GE Healthcare (GEHC), Siemens Healthineers
Field Strength: 1.5T and 3.0T
GE Software Versions: 12, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
Siemens Software Versions: N4/VE; NX/VA

The Vista AI "Vista OS" product provides a seamless user experience for performing MRI studies on GE and Siemens scanners. The underlying software platform that we use to accomplish this task is called "RTHawk".

RTHawk is a software platform designed from the ground up to provide efficient MRI data acquisition, data transfer, image reconstruction, and interactive scan control and display of static and dynamic MR imaging data. It can control MR pulse sequences provided by Vista AI and, on scanners that support it, it can equally control MR pulse sequences provided by the scanner vendor. Scan protocols can be created by the user that mix and match among all available sequences.

RTHawk is an accessory to clinical 1.5T and 3.0T MR systems, operating alongside, and in parallel with, the MR scanner console with no permanent physical modifications to the MRI system required.

The software runs on a stand-alone Linux-based computer workstation with color monitor, keyboard and mouse. It is designed to operate alongside, and in parallel with, the existing MR console with no hardware modifications required to be made to the MR system or console. This workstation (the "Vista Workstation") is sourced by the Customer in conformance with specifications provided by Vista AI, and is verified prior to installation.

A private Ethernet network connects the Vista Workstation to the MR scanner computer. When not in use, the Vista Workstation may be detached from the MR scanner with no detrimental, residual impact upon MR scanner function, operation, or throughput.

RTHawk is an easy-to-use, yet fully functional, MR Operating System environment. RTHawk has been designed to provide a platform for the efficient acquisition, control, reconstruction, display, and storage of high-quality static and dynamic MRI images and data.

Data is continuously acquired and displayed. By user interaction or data feedback, fundamental scan parameters can be modified. Real-time and high-resolution image acquisition methods are used throughout RTHawk for scan plane localization, for tracking of patient motion, for detection of transient events, for on-the-fly, sub-second latency adjustment of image acquisition parameters (e.g., scan plane, flip angle, field-of-view, etc.) and for image visualization.

RTHawk implements the conventional MRI concept of anatomy- and indication-specific Protocols (e.g., ischemia evaluation, valvular evaluation, routine brain, etc.). Protocols are pre-set by Vista AI, but new protocols can be created and modified by the end user.

RTHawk Apps (Applications) are composed of a pulse sequence, predefined fixed and adjustable parameters, reconstruction pipeline(s), and a tailored graphical user interface containing image visualization and scan control tools. RTHawk Apps may provide real-time interactive scanning, conventional (traditional) batch-mode scanning, accelerated scanning, or calibration functions, in which data acquired may be used to tune or optimize other Apps.

When vendor-supplied pulse sequences are used in Vista OS, parameters and scan planes are prescribed in the Vista interface and images reconstructed by the scanner appear on the Vista Workstation. RTHawk Apps and vendor-supplied sequences can be mixed within a single protocol with a unified user experience for both.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for Vista OS, Vista AI Scan, and RTHawk, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes several clinical verification studies for new AI-powered features. Each feature has specific acceptance criteria.

2. Diagnostic quality of denoised data judged superior to paired non-denoised series in > 80% of test cases. | Meets or exceeds |
   | Automatic Brain Localizer Prescriptions | Mean error in plane angulation

Ask a specific question about this device

The InVision™ 3T Recharge Operating Suite is indicated for use as a magnetic resonance diagnostic device (MRDD) that produces transverse, sagittal, coronal and oblique cross sectional images, spectroscopic images and/or spectra, and that displays the internal structure and/or function of the head, body or extremities.

Other physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra may also be produced. Depending on the region of interest, contrast agents may be used. These images and/or spectra and the physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra when interpreted by a trained physician yield information that may assist in diagnosis.

The InVision™ 3T Recharge Operating Suite may also be used for imaging during intraoperative and interventional procedures when performed with MR safe devices or MR conditional devices approved for use with the MR scanner.

The InVision™ 3T Recharge Operating Suite may also be used for imaging in a multi-room suite.

The proposed InVision™ 3T Recharge Operating Suite featuring the Siemens MAGNETOM Skyra Fit upgrade from Verio is a traditional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner that is suspended on an overhead rail system. It is designed to operate inside a Radio Frequency (RF) shielded room to facilitate intraoperative and multi-room use. The InVision™ 3T Recharge Operating Suite uses a scanner, the Siemens MAGNETOM Skyra Fit (K220589, reference device), to produce images of the internal structures of the head as well as the whole body. The Siemens 3T MAGNETOM Skyra Fit MRI scanner is an actively shielded magnet with a magnetic field strength of 3 Tesla.

The InVision™ 3T Recharge Operating Suite provides surgeons with access to magnetic resonance (MR) images while in the surgical field without changing the surgical/clinical workflow. When images are requested in the operating room (OR), the magnet is moved from the diagnostic room (DR) to the OR on a pair of overhead rails while the patient remains stationary during the procedure. Imaging is performed and once complete the magnet is moved out of the OR to the DR. The magnet can be moved in and out of the surgical field multiple times, as required, throughout the course of the surgical procedure. When the Siemens MAGNETOM Skyra Fit MRI scanner is in the DR, the OR may be used as a standard OR, utilizing standard surgical instruments and equipment during surgery. When not required in the OR, the scanner is available for use in the DR as a standard diagnostic MRI.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter states that the "InVision™ 3T Recharge Operating Suite" has been tested and determined to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device "IMRIS iMRI 3T V (K212367)". However, the document does not contain specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), or details of a de novo study proving the device meets said criteria.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through:

• Comparison of indications for use, principles of operation, and technological characteristics.
• Conformity to FDA recognized consensus standards.
• Successful completion of non-clinical performance, electrical, mechanical, structural, electromagnetic compatibility, and software testing.
• Successful completion of standard Siemens QA tests and expert review of sample clinical images to assess clinically acceptable MR imaging performance.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria and a specific study proving those criteria are not present in this document. The device is a "Magnetic resonance diagnostic device" (MRDD), implying its performance is related to image quality and ability to assist in diagnosis, but quantitative metrics are not provided.

Here is a summary of the information that can be extracted or inferred from the provided text, with blank or "N/A" for information not present:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As noted, the document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance metrics in terms of clinical diagnostic efficacy (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). The acceptance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and successful completion of various engineering and functional tests.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions "Sample Clinical Images in DR and OR" were assessed, but the number of images or cases is not given.
• Data Provenance: Not specified.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified. The document mentions "expert review of sample clinical images."
• Qualifications of Experts: It states "interpreted by a trained physician" in the Indications for Use, and mentions "expert review" for image assessment, but specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, subspecialty) are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. The document states "expert review of sample clinical images," but does not detail how consensus or adjudication was reached if multiple experts were involved.

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

• MRMC Study: No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or described. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence via engineering/functional performance and image quality, not directly on reader performance with/without AI assistance.
• Effect Size of Human Readers Improve with AI vs. without AI Assistance: Not applicable, as no MRMC study involving AI assistance was described. The device itself is an MRI system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-loop Performance) Study

• Standalone Study: Yes, in a way. The "system imaging performance testing" and successful completion of "standard Siemens QA tests" would represent standalone performance assessments of the MRI hardware and integrated software components responsible for image acquisition, without human interpretation in the loop for the performance assessment itself. However, the primary purpose of the device is to produce images "interpreted by a trained physician," meaning human-in-the-loop is part of its intended use. The document does not describe an "algorithm only" study in the context of an AI-driven diagnostic algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground Truth Type: For the "Sample Clinical Images," the ground truth establishment method is not detailed beyond "expert review." For the general device functionality and image quality, the "ground truth" would be established by engineering specifications, recognized standards, and the performance of the predicate device.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This document describes the clearance of an MRI system, not an AI/ML algorithm that typically requires a discrete "training set." The software components mentioned (Magnet Mover Software and Application Platform Software) likely underwent standard software verification and validation, but not in the context of a "training set" for machine learning.

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

• Ground Truth Establishment for Training Set: Not applicable (see point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

The uMR Jupiter system is indicated for use as a magnetic resonance diagnostic device (MRDD) that produces sagittal, transverse, coronal, and oblique cross sectional images, and spectroscopic images, and that display internal anatomical structure and/or function of the head, body and extremities.

These images and the physical parameters derived from the images when interpreted by a trained physician yield information that may assist the diagnosis. Contrast agents may be used depending on the region of interest of the scan.

The device is intended for patients > 20 kg/44 lbs.

uMR Jupiter is a 5T superconducting magnetic resonance diagnostic device with a 60cm size patient bore and 8 channel RF transmit system. It consists of components such as magnet, RF power amplifier, RF coils, gradient power amplifier, gradient coils, patient table, spectrometer, computer, equipment cabinets, power distribution system, internal communication system, and vital signal module etc. uMR Jupiter is designed to conform to NEMA and DICOM standards.

The modification performed on the uMR Jupiter in this submission is due to the following changes that include:

1. Addition of RF coils: SuperFlex Large - 24 and Foot & Ankle Coil - 24.

2. Addition of applied body part for certain coil: SuperFlex Small-24 (add imaging of ankle).

3. Addition and modification of pulse sequences:

   • a) New sequences: fse_wfi, gre_fsp_c (3D), gre_bssfp_ucs, epi_fid(3D), epi_dti_msh.
   • b) Added Associated options for certain sequences: asl_3d (add mPLD) (Only output original images and no quantification images are output), gre_fsp_c (add Cardiac Cine, Cardiac Perfusion, PSIR, Cardiac mapping), gre_quick(add WFI, MRCA), gre_bssfp(add Cardiac Cine, Cardiac mapping), epi_dwi(add IVIM) (Only output original images and no quantification images are output).

4. Addition of function: EasyScan, EasyCrop, t-ACS, QScan, tFAST, DeepRecon and WFI.

5. Addition of workflow: EasyFACT.

This FDA 510(k) summary (K250246) for the uMR Jupiter provides details on several new AI-assisted features. Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Important Note: The document is not a MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI. Instead, it focuses on the performance of individual AI modules and their integration into the MRI system, often verified by radiologists' review of image quality.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document presents acceptance criteria implicitly through the "Test Result" or "Performance Verification" sections for each AI feature. The "Performance" column below summarizes the device's reported achievement for these criteria.

1. "A better consistency between t-ACS and the reference than that between CS and the reference was shown in all t-ACS application types."
2. "No large structural difference appeared between t-ACS and the reference in all t-ACS application types."
3. "The motion-time curves and Bland-Altman analysis showed the consistency between t-ACS and the reference based on simulated and real acquired data in all t-ACS application types."
   Overall: "The t-ACS on uMR Jupiter was shown to perform better than traditional Compressed Sensing in the sense of discrepancy from fully sampled images and PSNR using images from various age groups, BMIs, ethnicities and pathological variations. The structure measurements on paired images verified that same structures of t-ACS and reference were significantly the same. And t-ACS integration tests in two applications proved that t-ACS had good agreement with the reference." |
   | DeepRecon | Expected to provide image de-noising and super-resolution, resulting in diagnostic quality images, with equivalent or higher scores than reference images in terms of diagnostic quality. | "The DeepRecon has been validated to provide image de-nosing and super-resolution processing using various ethnicities, age groups, BMIs, and pathological variations. In addition, DeepRecon images were evaluated by American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians, covering a range of protocols and body parts. The evaluation reports from radiologists verified that DeepRecon meets the requirements of clinical diagnosis. All DeepRecon images were rated with equivalent or higher scores in terms of diagnosis quality." |
   | EasyFACT | Expected to effectively automate ROI placement and numerical statistics for FF and R2* values, with results subjectively evaluated as effective. | "The subjective evaluation method was used [to verify effectiveness]." "The proposal of algorithm acceptance criteria and score processing are conducted by the licensed physicians with U.S. credentials." (Implied successful verification from context) |
   | EasyScan | Pass criteria of 99.3% for automatic slice group positioning, meeting safety and effectiveness requirements. | "The pass criteria of EasyScan feature is 99.3%, and the results evaluated by the licenced MRI technologist with U.S. credentials. Therefore, EasyScan meets the criteria for safety and effectiveness, and EasyScan can meet the requirements for automatic positioning locates slice groups." (Implied reaching or exceeding 99.3%.) |
   | EasyCrop | Pass criteria of 100% for automatic image cropping, meeting safety and effectiveness requirements. | "The pass criteria of EasyCrop feature is 100%, and the results evaluated by the licenced MRI technologist with U.S. credentials. Therefore, EasCrop meets the criteria for safety and effectiveness, and EasCrop can meet the requirements for automatic cropping." (Implied reaching or exceeding 100%.) |

Study Details

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

   • WFI: 144 cases from 28 volunteers. Data collected from UIH Jupiter. "Completely separated from the previous mentioned training dataset by collecting from different volunteers and during different time periods." (Retrospective for testing, though specific country of origin beyond "UIH MRI systems" is not explicitly stated for testing data, training data has "Asian" majority.)
   • t-ACS: 35 subjects (data from 76 volunteers used for overall training/validation/test split). Test data collected independently from the training data, with separated subjects and during different time periods. "White," "Black," and "Asian" ethnicities mentioned, implying potentially multi-country or diverse internal dataset.
   • DeepRecon: 20 subjects (2216 cases). "Diverse demographic distributions" including "White" and "Asian" ethnicities. "Collecting testing data from various clinical sites and during separated time periods."
   • EasyFACT: 5 subjects. "Data were acquired from 5T magnetic resonance imaging equipment from UIH," and "Asia" ethnicity is listed.
   • EasyScan: 30 cases from 18 "Asia" subjects (initial testing); 40 cases from 8 "Asia" subjects (validation on uMR Jupiter system).
   • EasyCrop: 5 subjects. "Data were acquired from 5T magnetic resonance imaging equipment from UIH," and "Asia" ethnicity is listed.

   Data provenance isn't definitively "retrospective" or "prospective" for the test sets, but the emphasis on "completely separated" and "independent" from training data collected at "different time periods" suggests these were distinct, potentially newly acquired or curated sets for evaluation. The presence of multiple ethnicities (White, Black, Asian) suggests potentially broader geographical origins than just China where the company is based, or a focus on creating diverse internal datasets.

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

   • WFI: Three U.S. certificated radiologists. (Qualifications: U.S. board-certified radiologists).
   • t-ACS: No separate experts establishing ground truth for the test set performance evaluation are mentioned beyond the quantitative metrics (MAE, PSNR, SSIM) compared against "fully sampled images" (reference/ground truth). The document states that fully-sampled k-space data transformed into image domain served as the reference.
   • DeepRecon: American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians. (Qualifications: American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians).
   • EasyFACT: Licensed physicians with U.S. credentials. (Qualifications: Licensed physicians with U.S. credentials).
   • EasyScan: Licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials. (Qualifications: Licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials).
   • EasyCrop: Licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials. (Qualifications: Licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials).

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

   The document does not explicitly state an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) for conflict resolution among readers. For WFI, DeepRecon, EasyFACT, EasyScan, and EasyCrop, it implies a consensus or majority opinion model based on the "evaluation reports from radiologists/technologists." For t-ACS, the evaluation of the algorithm's output is based on quantitative metrics against a reference image ground truth.

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 traditional MRMC comparative effectiveness study where human readers interpret cases with AI assistance versus without AI assistance was not described. The studies primarily validated the AI features' standalone performance (e.g., image quality, accuracy of automated functions) or their output's equivalence/superiority to traditional methods, often through expert review of the AI-generated images. Therefore, no effect size of human reader improvement with AI assistance is provided.

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

   Yes, standalone performance was the primary focus for most AI features mentioned, though the output was often subject to human expert review.

   • WFI: The AI network provides initialization for the RIPE algorithm. The output image quality was then reviewed by radiologists.
   • t-ACS: Performance was evaluated quantitatively against fully sampled images (reference/ground truth), indicating a standalone algorithm evaluation.
   • DeepRecon: Evaluated based on images processed by the algorithm, with expert review of the output images.
   • EasyFACT, EasyScan, EasyCrop: These are features that automate parts of the workflow. Their output (e.g., ROI placement, slice positioning, cropping) was evaluated, often subjectively by experts, but the automation itself is algorithm-driven.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

   • WFI: Expert consensus/review by three U.S. certificated radiologists for "clinical diagnosis" quality. No "ground truth" for water-fat separation accuracy itself is explicitly stated, but the problem being solved (water-fat swap artifacts) implies the improved stability of the algorithm's output.
   • t-ACS: "Fully-sampled k-space data were collected and transformed into image domain as reference." This serves as the "true" or ideal image for comparison, not derived from expert interpretation or pathology.
   • DeepRecon: "Multiple-averaged images with high-resolution and high SNR were collected as the ground-truth images." Expert review confirms diagnostic quality of processed images.
   • EasyFACT: Subjective evaluation by licensed physicians with U.S. credentials, implying their judgment regarding the correctness of ROI placement and numerical statistics.
   • EasyScan: Evaluation by a licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials against the "correctness" of automatic slice positioning.
   • EasyCrop: Evaluation by a licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials against the "correctness" of automatic cropping.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • WFI AI module: 59 volunteers (2604 cases). Each scanned for multiple body parts and WFI protocols.
   • t-ACS AI module: Not specified as a distinct number, but "collected from a variety of anatomies, image contrasts, and acceleration factors... resulting in a large number of cases." The overall dataset for training, validation, and testing was 76 volunteers.
   • DeepRecon: 317 volunteers.
   • EasyFACT, EasyScan, EasyCrop: "The training data used for the training of the EasyFACT algorithm is independent of the data used to test the algorithm." For EasyScan and EasyCrop, it states "The testing dataset was collected independently from the training dataset," but does not provide specific training set sizes for these workflow features.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • WFI AI module: The AI network was trained to provide accurate initialization for the RIPE algorithm. The document implies that the RIPE algorithm itself with human oversight or internal validation would have been used to establish correct water/fat separation for training.
   • t-ACS AI module: "Fully-sampled k-space data were collected and transformed into image domain as reference." This served as the ground truth against which the AI was trained to reconstruct undersampled data.
   • DeepRecon: "The multiple-averaged images with high-resolution and high SNR were collected as the ground-truth images." This indicates that high-quality, non-denoised, non-super-resolved images were used as the ideal target for the AI.
   • EasyFACT, EasyScan, EasyCrop: Not explicitly detailed beyond stating that training data ground truth was established to enable the algorithms for automatic ROI placement, slice group positioning, and image cropping, respectively. It implies a process of manually annotating or identifying the correct ROIs/positions/crops on training data for the AI to learn from.

Ask a specific question about this device

Vantage Fortian/Orian 1.5T systems are indicated for use as a diagnostic imaging modality that produces cross-sectional transaxial, coronal, sagittal, and oblique images that display anatomic structures of the head or body. Additionally, this system is capable of non-contrast enhanced imaging, such as MRA.

MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) images correspond to the spatial distribution of protons (hydrogen nuclei) that exhibit nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). The NMR properties of body tissues and fluids are:

• Proton density (PD) (also called hydrogen density)
• Spin-lattice relaxation time (T1)
• Spin-spin relaxation time (T2)
• Flow dynamics
• Chemical Shift

Depending on the region of interest, contrast agents may be used. When interpreted by a trained physician, these images yield information that can be useful in diagnosis.

The Vantage Fortian (Model MRT-1550/WK, WM, WO, WQ)/Vantage Orian (Model MRT-1550/U3, U4, U7, U8) is a 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) System. These Vantage Fortian/Orian models use 1.4 m short and 4.1 tons light weight magnet. They include the Canon Pianissimo™ Sigma and Pianissimo Zen technology (scan noise reduction technology). The design of the gradient coil and the whole-body coil of these Vantage Fortian/Orian models provide the maximum field of view of 55 x 55 x 50 cm and include the standard (STD) gradient system.

The Vantage Orian (Model MRT-1550/ UC, UD, UG, UH, UK, UL, UO, UP) is a 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) System. The Vantage Orian models use 1.4 m short and 4.1 tons light weight magnet. They include the Canon Pianissimo™ and Pianissimo Zen technology (scan noise reduction technology). The design of the gradient coil and the whole-body coil of these Vantage Orian models provide the maximum field of view of 55 x 55 x 50 cm. The Model MRT-1550/ UC, UD, UG, UH, UK, UL, UO, UP includes the XGO gradient system.

This system is based upon the technology and materials of previously marketed Canon Medical Systems MRI systems and is intended to acquire and display cross-sectional transaxial, coronal, sagittal, and oblique images of anatomic structures of the head or body. The Vantage Fortian/Orian MRI System is comparable to the current 1.5T Vantage Fortian/Orian MRI System (K240238), cleared April 12, 2024, with the following modifications.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Canon Medical Systems Vantage Fortian/Orian 1.5T with AiCE Reconstruction Processing Unit for MR

This document outlines the acceptance criteria and the study conducted to demonstrate that the Canon Medical Systems Vantage Fortian/Orian 1.5T with AiCE Reconstruction Processing Unit for MR (V10.0) device meets these criteria, specifically focusing on the new features: 4D Flow, Zoom DWI, and PIQE.

The provided text focuses on the updates in V10.0 of the device, which primarily include software enhancements: 4D Flow, Zoom DWI, and an extended Precise IQ Engine (PIQE). The acceptance criteria and testing are described for these specific additions.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The general acceptance criterion for all new features appears to be demonstrating clinical acceptability and performance that is either equivalent to or better than conventional methods, maintaining image quality, and confirming intended functionality. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria are not explicitly detailed in the provided document beyond qualitative assessments and comparative statements.

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

• 4D Flow & Zoom DWI: Evaluated utilizing phantom images and "representative volunteer images." Specific numbers for volunteers are not provided.
• PIQE Clinical Image Review Study:
  • Subjects: A total of 75 unique subjects.
  • Scans: Comprising a total of 399 scans.
  • Reconstructions: Each scan was reconstructed multiple ways with or without PIQE, totaling 1197 reconstructions for scoring.
  • Data Provenance: Subjects were from two sites in USA and Japan. The study states that although the dataset includes subjects from outside the USA, the population is expected to be representative of the intended US population due to PIQE being an image post-processing algorithm that is not disease-specific and not dependent on factors like population variation or body habitus.

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

• PIQE Clinical Image Review Study:
  • Number of Experts: 14 USA board-certified radiologists/cardiologists.
  • Distribution: 3 experts per anatomy (Body, Breast, Cardiac, Musculoskeletal (MSK), and Neuro).
  • Qualifications: "USA board-certified radiologists/cardiologists." Specific years of experience are not mentioned.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• PIQE Clinical Image Review Study: The study describes a randomized, blinded clinical image review study. Images reconstructed with either the conventional method or the new PIQE method were randomized and blinded to the reviewers. Reviewers scored the images independently using a modified 5-point Likert scale. Analytical methods used included Gwet's Agreement Coefficient for reviewer agreement and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) for differences between reconstruction techniques, implying a statistical assessment of agreement and comparison across reviewers rather than a simple consensus adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1).

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

• Yes, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done for PIQE.
• Effect Size of Human Readers' Improvement with AI vs. Without AI Assistance: The document states that "the Reviewers' scoring confirmed that: (a) PIQE generates higher spatial in-plane resolution images from lower resolution images (with the ability to triple the matrix dimensions in both in-plane directions, i.e. a factor of 9x); (b) PIQE contributes to ringing artifact reduction, denoising and increased sharpness; (c) PIQE is able to accelerate scanning by reducing the acquisition matrix only, while maintaining clinical matrix size and image quality; and (d) PIQE benefits can be obtained on regular clinical protocols without requiring acquisition parameter adjustment."
  • While it reports positive outcomes ("scored on average at, or above, clinically acceptable," "strong agreement at the 'good' and 'very good' level"), it does not provide a quantitative effect size (e.g., AUC difference, diagnostic accuracy improvement percentage) of how much human readers improve with AI (PIQE) assistance compared to without it. The focus is on the quality of PIQE-reconstructed images as perceived by experts, rather than the direct impact on diagnostic accuracy or reader performance metrics. It confirms that the performance is "similar or better" compared to conventional methods.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Yes, standalone performance was conducted for PIQE and other features.
  • 4D Flow and Zoom DWI: Evaluated using phantom images, which represents standalone, objective measurement of the algorithm's performance against known physical properties.
  • PIQE: Bench testing was performed on typical clinical images to evaluate metrics like Edge Slope Width (sharpness), Ringing Variable Mean (ringing artifacts), Signal-to-Noise ratio (SNR), and Contrast Ratio. This is an algorithmic-only evaluation against predefined metrics, without direct human interpretation as part of the performance metric.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• 4D Flow & Zoom DWI:
  • Phantom Studies: Known physical values (e.g., known flow values for velocity measurement, known distortion levels, known ADC values).
• PIQE:
  • Bench Testing: Quantitative imaging metrics derived from the images themselves (Edge Slope Width, Ringing Variable Mean, SNR, Contrast Ratio) are used to assess the impact of the algorithm. No external ground truth (like pathology) is explicitly mentioned here, as the focus is on image quality enhancement.
  • Clinical Image Review Study: Expert consensus/opinion (modified 5-point Likert scale scores from 14 board-certified radiologists/cardiologists) was used as the ground truth for image quality, sharpness, ringing, SNR, and feature conspicuity, compared against images reconstructed with conventional methods. No pathology or outcomes data is mentioned as ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document explicitly states that the 75 unique subjects used in the PIQE clinical image review study were "separate from the training data sets." However, it does not specify the sample size for the training set used for the PIQE deep learning model.

9. 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 for PIQE was established. It only mentions that the study test data sets were separate from the training data sets.

Ask a specific question about this device

The uMR Ultra system is indicated for use as a magnetic resonance diagnostic device (MRDD) that produces sagittal, transverse, coronal, and oblique cross sectional images, and spectroscopic images, and that display internal anatomical structure and/or function of the head, body and extremities. These images and the physical parameters derived from the images when interpreted by a trained physician yield information that may assist the diagnosis. Contrast agents may be used depending on the region of interest of the scan.

uMR Ultra is a 3T superconducting magnetic resonance diagnostic device with a 70cm size patient bore and 2 channel RF transmit system. It consists of components such as magnet, RF power amplifier, RF coils, gradient power amplifier, gradient coils, patient table, spectrometer, computer, equipment cabinets, power distribution system, internal communication system, and vital signal module etc. uMR Ultra is designed to conform to NEMA and DICOM standards.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the uMR Ultra device, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given the nature of the document, which focuses on device clearance, multiple features are discussed. I will present the acceptance criteria and results for the AI-powered features, as these are the most relevant to the "AI performance" aspect.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for AI-Enabled Features

• ACS has higher SNR than CS.
• ACS has higher (standard deviation (SD) / mean value(S)) values than CS.
• Bland-Altman analysis of image intensities acquired using fully sampled and ACS shown with less than 1% bias and all sample points falls in the 95% confidence interval.
• Measurement differences on ACS and fully sampled images of same structures under 5% is acceptable.
• Radiologists rate all ACS images with equivalent or higher scores in terms of diagnosis quality. | - Pass
• Pass
• Pass
• Pass
• Pass
• Verified that ACS meets the requirements of clinical diagnosis. All ACS images were rated with equivalent or higher scores in terms of diagnosis quality. |
  | DeepRecon | - DeepRecon images achieve higher SNR compared to NADR images.
• Uniformity difference between DeepRecon images and NADR images under 5%.
• Intensity difference between DeepRecon images and NADR images under 5%.
• Measurements on NADR and DeepRecon images of same structures, measurement difference under 5%.
• Radiologists rate all DeepRecon images with equivalent or higher scores in terms of diagnosis quality. | - NADR: 343.63, DeepRecon: 496.15 (PASS)
• 0.07% (PASS)
• 0.2% (PASS)
• 0% (PASS)
• Verified that DeepRecon meets the requirements of clinical diagnosis. All DeepRecon images were rated with equivalent or higher scores in terms of diagnosis quality. |
  | EasyScan | No Fail cases and auto position success rate P1/(P1+P2+F) exceeds 80%.
  (P1: Pass with auto positioning; P2: Pass with user adjustment; F: Fail) | 99.6% |
  | t-ACS | - AI prediction (AI module output) much closer to reference compared to AI module input images.
• Better consistency between t-ACS and reference than between CS and reference.
• No large structural difference appeared between t-ACS and reference.
• Motion-time curves and Bland-Altman analysis consistency between t-ACS and reference. | - Pass
• Pass
• Pass
• Pass |
  | AiCo | - AiCo images exhibit improved PSNR and SSIM compared to the originals.
• No significant structural differences from the gold standard.
• Radiologists confirm image quality is diagnostically acceptable, fewer motion artifacts, and greater benefits for clinical diagnosis. | - Pass
• Pass
• Confirmed. |
  | SparkCo | - Average detection accuracy needs to be > 90%.
• Average PSNR of spark-corrected images needs to be higher than spark images.
• Spark artifacts need to be reduced or corrected after enabling SparkCo. | - 94%
• 1.6 higher
• Successfully corrected |
  | ImageGuard | Success rate P/(P+F) exceeds 90%.
  (P: Pass if prompt appears for motion / no prompt for no motion; F: Fail if prompt doesn't appear for motion / prompt appears for no motion) | 100% |
  | EasyCrop | No Fail cases and pass rate P1/(P1+P2+F) exceeds 90%.
  (P1: Other peripheral tissues cropped, meets user requirements; P2: Cropped images don't meet user requirements, but can be re-cropped; F: EasyCrop fails or original images not saved) | 100% |
  | EasyFACT | Satisfied and Acceptable ratio (S+A)/(S+A+F) exceeds 95%.
  (S: All ROIs placed correctly; A: Fewer than five ROIs placed correctly; F: ROIs positioned incorrectly or none placed) | 100% |
  | Auto TI Scout | Average frame difference between auto-calculated TI and gold standard is ≤ 1 frame, and maximum frame difference is ≤ 2 frames. | Average: 0.37-0.44 frames, Maximum: 1-2 frames (PASS) |
  | Inline MOCO | Average Dice coefficient of the left ventricular myocardium after motion correction is > 0.87. | Cardiac Perfusion Images: 0.92
  Cardiac Dark Blood Images: 0.96 |
  | Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition | The average error between the phase indices calculated by the algorithm for the ED and ES of test data and the gold standard phase indices does not exceed 1 frame. | 0.13 frames |
  | Inline ECV | No failure cases, satisfaction rate S/(S+A+F) > 95%.
  (S: Segmentation adheres to myocardial boundary, blood pool ROI correct; A: Small missing/redundant areas but blood pool ROI correct; F: Myocardial mask fails or blood pool ROI incorrect) | 100% |
  | EasyRegister (Height Estimation) | PH5 (Percentage of height error within 5%); PH15 (Percentage of height error within 15%); MEAN_H (Average error of height). (Specific numerical criteria not explicitly stated beyond these metrics) | PH5: 92.4%
  PH15: 100%
  MEAN_H: 31.53mm |
  | EasyRegister (Weight Estimation) | PW10 (Percentage of weight error within 10%); PW20 (Percentage of weight error within 20%); MEAN_W (Average error of weight). (Specific numerical criteria not explicitly stated beyond these metrics) | PW10: 68.64%
  PW20: 90.68%
  MEAN_W: 6.18kg |
  | EasyBolus | No Fail cases and success rate P1+P2/(P1+P2+F) exceeds 100%.
  (P1: Monitoring point positioning meets user requirements, frame difference ≤ 1 frame; P2: Monitoring point positioning meets user requirements, frame difference = 2 frames; F: Auto position fails or frame difference > 2 frames) | P1: 80%
  P2: 20%
  Total Failure Rate: 0%
  Pass: 100% |

For the rest of the questions, I will consolidate the information where possible, as some aspects apply across multiple AI features.

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

• ACS: 749 samples from 25 volunteers. Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, ethnicity (White, Asian, Black), and BMI (Underweight, Healthy, Overweight/Obesity). Data collected from various clinical sites during separated time periods.
• DeepRecon: 25 volunteers (nearly 2200 samples). Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, ethnicity (White, Asian, Black), and BMI. Data collected from various clinical sites during separated time periods.
• EasyScan: 444 cases from 116 subjects. Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, and ethnicities. Data acquired from UIH MRI equipment (1.5T and 3T). Data provenance not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin), but given the company location (China) and "U.S. credentials" for evaluators, it likely includes data from both. The document states "The testing dataset was collected independently from the training dataset".
• t-ACS: 1173 cases from 60 volunteers. Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, ethnicities (White, Black, Asian) and BMI. Data acquired by uMR Ultra scanners. Data provenance not explicitly stated, but implies global standard testing.
• AiCo: 218 samples from 24 healthy volunteers. Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, BMI (Under/healthy weight, Overweight/Obesity), and ethnicity (White, Black, Asian). Data provenance not explicitly stated.
• SparkCo: 59 cases from 15 patients for real-world spark raw data testing. Diverse demographic distributions including gender, age, BMI (Underweight, Healthy, Overweight, Obesity), and ethnicity (Asian, "N.A." for White, implying not tested as irrelevant). Data acquired by uMR 1.5T and uMR 3T scanners.
• ImageGuard: 191 cases from 80 subjects. Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, and ethnicities (White, Black, Asian). Data acquired from UIH MRI equipment (1.5T and 3T).
• EasyCrop: Not explicitly stated as "subjects" vs. "cases," but tested on 5 intended imaging body parts. Sample size (N=65) implies 65 cases/scans, potentially from 65 distinct subjects or fewer if subjects had multiple scans. Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, ethnicity (Asian, Black, White). Data acquired from UIH MRI equipment (1.5T and 3T).
• EasyFACT: 25 cases from 25 volunteers. Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, weight, and ethnicity (Asian, White, Black).
• Auto TI Scout: 27 patients. Diverse demographic distributions covering various genders, age groups, ethnicity (Asian, White), and BMI. Data acquired from 1.5T and 3T scanners.
• Inline MOCO: Cardiac Perfusion Images: 105 cases from 60 patients. Cardiac Dark Blood Images: 182 cases from 33 patients. Diverse demographic distributions covering age, gender, ethnicity (Asian, White, Black, Hispanic), BMI, field strength, and disease conditions (Positive, Negative, Unknown).
• Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition: 95 cases from 56 volunteers, covering various genders, age groups, field strength, disease conditions (NOR, MINF, DCM, HCM, ARV), and ethnicity (Asian, White, Black).
• Inline ECV: 90 images from 28 patients. Diverse demographic distributions covering gender, age, BMI, field strength, ethnicity (Asian, White), and health status (Negative, Positive, Unknown).
• EasyRegister (Height/Weight Estimation): 118 cases from 63 patients. Diverse ethnic groups (Chinese, US, France, Germany).
• EasyBolus: 20 subjects. Diverse demographic distributions covering gender, age, field strength, and ethnicity (Asia).

Data Provenance (Retrospective/Prospective and Country of Origin):
The document states "The testing dataset was collected independently from the training dataset, with separated subjects and during different time periods." This implies a prospective collection for validation that is distinct from the training data. For ACS and DeepRecon, it explicitly mentions "US subjects" for some evaluations, but for many features, the specific country of origin for the test set is not explicitly stated beyond "diverse ethnic groups" or "Asian" which could be China (where the company is based) or other Asian populations. The use of "U.S. board-certified radiologists" and "licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials" for evaluation suggests the data is intended to be representative of, or directly includes, data relevant to the U.S. clinical context.

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

• ACS & DeepRecon: Evaluated by "American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians" (plural, implying multiple, at least 2). Not specified how many exactly, but strong qualifications.
• EasyScan, ImageGuard, EasyCrop, EasyBolus: Evaluated by "licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials." For EasyBolus, it specifies "certified professionals in the United States." Number not explicitly stated beyond "the" technologist/professionals, but implying multiple for robust evaluation.
• Inline MOCO & Inline ECV: Ground truth annotations done by a "well-trained annotator" and "finally, all ground truth was evaluated by three licensed physicians with U.S. credentials." This indicates a 3-expert consensus/adjudication.
• SparkCo: "One experienced evaluator" for subjective image quality improvement.
• For other features (t-ACS, EasyFACT, Auto TI Scout, Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition, EasyRegister), the ground truth seems to be based on physical measurements (for EasyRegister) or computational metrics (for t-ACS based on fully-sampled images, and for accuracy of ROI placement against defined standards), rather than human expert adjudication for ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

• Inline MOCO & Inline ECV: "Evaluated by three licensed physicians with U.S. credentials." This implies a 3-expert consensus method for ground truth establishment.
• ACS, DeepRecon, AiCo: "Evaluated by American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians" (plural). While not explicitly stated as 2+1 or 3+1, it suggests a multi-reader review, where consensus was likely reached for the reported diagnostic quality.
• SparkCo: "One experienced evaluator" was used for subjective evaluation, implying no formal multi-reader adjudication for this specific metric.
• For features like EasyScan, ImageGuard, EasyCrop, EasyBolus (evaluated by MRI technologists) and those relying on quantitative metrics against a reference (t-ACS, EasyFACT, Auto TI Scout, EasyRegister, Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition), the "ground truth" is either defined by the system's intended function (e.g., correct auto-positioning) or a mathematically derived reference, so a traditional human adjudication method is not applicable in the same way as for diagnostic image interpretation.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

The document does not explicitly state that a formal MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed to quantify the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance.

Instead, the evaluations for ACS, DeepRecon, and AiCo involve "American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians" who "verified that [AI feature] meets the requirements of clinical diagnosis. All [AI feature] images were rated with equivalent or higher scores in terms of diagnosis quality." For AiCo, they confirmed images "exhibit fewer motion artifacts and offer greater benefits for clinical diagnosis." This is a qualitative assessment of diagnostic quality by experts, but not a comparative effectiveness study in the sense of measuring reader accuracy or confidence change with AI assistance.

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

Yes, for many of the AI-enabled features, a standalone performance evaluation was conducted:

• ACS: Performance was evaluated by comparing quantitative metrics (NRMSE, SNR, Resolution, Contrast, Uniformity, Structure Measurement) against fully-sampled images or CS. This is a standalone evaluation.
• DeepRecon: Quantitative metrics (SNR, uniformity, contrast, structure measurement) were compared between DeepRecon and NADR (without DeepRecon) images. This is a standalone evaluation.
• t-ACS: Quantitative tests (MAE, PSNR, SSIM, structural measurements, motion-time curves) were performed comparing t-ACS and CS results against a reference. This is a standalone evaluation.
• AiCo: PSNR and SSIM values were quantitatively compared, and structural dimensions were assessed, between AiCo processed images and original/motionless reference images. This is a standalone evaluation.
• SparkCo: Spark detection accuracy was calculated, and PSNR of spark-corrected images was compared to original spark images. This is a standalone evaluation.
• Inline MOCO: Evaluated using Dice coefficient, a quantitative metric for segmentation accuracy. This is a standalone evaluation.
• Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition: Evaluated by quantifying the error between algorithm output and gold standard phase indices. This is a standalone evaluation.
• Inline ECV: Evaluated by quantitative scoring for segmentation accuracy (S, A, F criteria). This is a standalone evaluation.
• EasyRegister (Height/Weight): Evaluated by quantitative error metrics (PH5, PH15, MEAN_H; PW10, PW20, MEAN_W) against physical measurements. This is a standalone evaluation.

Features like EasyScan, ImageGuard, EasyCrop, and EasyBolus involve automated workflow assistance where the direct "diagnostic" outcome isn't solely from the algorithm, but the automated function's performance is evaluated in a standalone manner against defined success criteria.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth varies depending on the specific AI feature:

• Reference/Fully-Sampled Data:
  • ACS, DeepRecon, t-ACS, AiCo: Fully-sampled k-space data transformed to image space served as "ground-truth" for training and as a reference for quantitative performance metrics in testing. For AiCo, "motionless data" served as gold standard.
  • SparkCo: Simulated spark artifacts generated from "spark-free raw data" provided ground truth for spark point locations in training.
• Expert Consensus/Subjective Evaluation:
  • ACS, DeepRecon, AiCo: "American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians" provided qualitative assessment of diagnostic image quality ("equivalent or higher scores," "diagnostically acceptable," "fewer motion artifacts," "greater benefits for clinical diagnosis").
  • EasyScan, ImageGuard, EasyCrop, EasyBolus: "Licensed MRI technologist with U.S. credentials" or "certified professionals in the United States" performed subjective evaluation against predefined success criteria for the workflow functionality.
  • SparkCo: One experienced evaluator for subjective image quality improvement.
• Anatomical/Physiological Measurements / Defined Standards:
  • EasyFACT: Defined criteria for ROI placement within liver parenchyma, avoiding borders/vascular structures.
  • Auto TI Scout, Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition: Gold standard phase indices were presumably established by expert review or a reference method.
  • Inline MOCO & Inline ECV: Ground truth for cardiac left ventricular myocardium segmentation was established by a "well-trained annotator" and "evaluated by three licensed physicians with U.S. credentials" (expert consensus based on anatomical boundaries).
  • EasyRegister (Height/Weight Estimation): "Precisely measured height/weight value" using "physical examination standards."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• ACS: 1,262,912 samples (collected from variety of anatomies, image contrasts, and acceleration factors, scanned by UIH MRI systems).
• DeepRecon: 165,837 samples (collected from 264 volunteers, scanned by UIH MRI systems for multiple body parts and clinical protocols).
• EasyScan: Training data collection not explicitly detailed in the same way as ACS/DeepRecon (refers to "collected independently from the training dataset").
• t-ACS: Datasets collected from 108 volunteers ("large number of samples").
• AiCo: 140,000 images collected from 114 volunteers across multiple body parts and clinical protocols.
• SparkCo: 24,866 spark slices generated from 61 cases collected from 10 volunteers.
• EasyFACT, Auto TI Scout, Inline MOCO, Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition, Inline ECV, EasyRegister, EasyBolus: The document states that training data was independent of testing data but does not provide specific sample sizes for the training datasets for these features.

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

• ACS, DeepRecon, t-ACS, AiCo: "Fully-sampled k-space data were collected and transformed to image space as the ground-truth." For DeepRecon specifically, "multiple-averaged images with high-resolution and high SNR were collected as the ground-truth images." For AiCo, "motionless data" served as gold standard. All training data were "manually quality controlled."
• SparkCo: "The training dataset... was generated by simulating spark artifacts from spark-free raw data... with the corresponding ground truth (i.e., the location of spark points)."
• Inline MOCO & Inline ECV: The document states "all ground truth was annotated by a well-trained annotator. The annotator used an interactive tool to observe the image, and then labeled the left ventricular myocardium in the image."
• For EasyScan, EasyFACT, Auto TI Scout, Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition, EasyRegister, and EasyBolus training ground truth establishment is not explicitly detailed, only that the testing data was independent of the training data. For EasyRegister, it implies physical measurements were the basis for ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

The uMR 680 system is indicated for use as a magnetic resonance diagnostic device (MRDD) that produces sagittal, transverse, coronal, and oblique cross sectional images, and spectroscopic images, and that display internal anatomical structure and/or function of the head, body and extremities.

These images and the physical parameters derived from the images when interpreted by a trained physician yield information that may assist the diagnosis. Contrast agents may be used depending on the region of interest of the scan.

The uMR 680 is a 1.5T superconducting magnetic resonance diagnostic device with a 70cm size patient bore. It consists of components such as magnet, RF power amplifier, RF coils, gradient power amplifier, gradient coils, patient table, spectrometer, computer, equipment cabinets, power distribution system, internal communication system, and vital signal module etc. The uMR 680 Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Device is designed to conform to NEMA and DICOM standards.

This traditional 510(k) is to request modifications for the cleared uMR 680(K240744). The modifications performed on the uMR 680 in this submission are due to the following changes that include:
(1) Addition of RF coils and corresponding accessories: Breast Coil -12, Biopsy Configuration, Head Coil-16, Positioning Couch-top, Coil Support.
(2) Deletion of VSM (Wireless UIH Gating Unit REF 453564324621, ECG module Ref 989803163121, SpO2 module Ref 989803163111).
(3) Modification of the dimensions of Detachable table: from width 826mm, height 880mm,2578mm to width 810mm, height 880mm, length 2505mm.
(4) Addition and modification of pulse sequences
a) New sequences: gre_snap, gre_quick_4dncemra, gre_pass, gre_mtp, gre_trass, epi_dwi_msh, epi_dti_msh, svs_hise.
b) Added associated options for certain sequences: fse(add Silicone-Only Imaging, MicroView, MTC, MultiBand), fse_arms(add Silicone-Only Imaging), fse_ssh(add Silicone-Only Imaging), fse_mx(add CEST, T1rho, MicroView, MTC), fse_arms_dwi(add MultiBand), asl_3d(add multi-PLD), gre(add T1rho, MTC, output phase image), gre_fsp(add FSP+), gre_bssfp(add CASS, TI Scout), gre_fsp_c(add 3D LGE, DB/GB PSIR), gre_bssfp_ucs(add real time cine), gre_fq(add 4D Flow), epi_dwi(add IVIM), epi_dti(add DKI, DSI).
c) Added additional accessory equipment required for certain sequences: gre_bssfp(add Virtual ECG Trigger).
d) Name change of certain sequences: gre_fine(old name: gre_bssfp_fi).
e) Added applicable body parts: gre_ute, gre_fine, fse_mx.
(5) Addition of imaging reconstruction methods: AI-assisted Compressed Sensing (ACS), Spark artifact Correction (SparkCo).
(6) Addition of imaging processing methods: Inline Cardiac Function, Inline ECV, Inline MRS, Inline MOCO, 4D Flow, SNAP, CEST, T1rho, FSP+, CASS, PASS, MTP.
(7) Addition of workflow features: TI Scout, EasyCrop, ImageGuard, Mocap, EasyFACT, Auto Bolus tracker, Breast Biopsy and uVision.
(8) Modification of workflow features: EasyScan(add applicable body parts)

The modification does not affect the intended use or alter the fundamental scientific technology of the device.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the uMR 680 Magnetic Resonance Imaging System outlines performance data for several new features and algorithms.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the studies that prove the device meets them for the AI-assisted Compressed Sensing (ACS), SparkCo, Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition, and Inline MOCO algorithms.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Age: 0.92-0.93
• Gender: 0.92
• Ethnicity: 0.91-0.92
• BMI: 0.91-0.95
• Magnetic field strength: 0.92-0.93
• Disease conditions: 0.91-0.93 |
  | | Dice Coefficient (Left Ventricular Myocardium after Motion Correction) Cardiac Dark Blood Images | The average Dice coefficient of the left ventricular myocardium after motion correction is greater than 0.87. | The average Dice coefficient of the left ventricular myocardium after motion correction is 0.96, which is greater than 0.87. Subgroup analysis also showed good generalization:
• Age: 0.95-0.96
• Gender: 0.96
• Ethnicity: 0.95-0.96
• BMI: 0.96-0.98
• Magnetic field strength: 0.96
• Disease conditions: 0.96-0.97 |

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

• AI-assisted Compressed Sensing (ACS):
  • Sample Size: 1724 samples from 35 volunteers.
  • Data Provenance: Diverse demographic distributions (gender, age groups, ethnicity, BMI) covering various clinical sites and separated time periods. Implied to be prospective or a carefully curated retrospective set, collected specifically for validation on the uMR 680 system, and independent of training data.
• SparkCo:
  • Simulated Spark Testing Dataset: 159 spark slices (generated from spark-free raw data).
  • Real-world Spark Testing Dataset: 59 cases from 15 patients.
  • Data Provenance: Real-world data acquired from uMR 1.5T and uMR 3T scanners, covering representative clinical protocols. The report specifies "Asian" for 100% of the real-world dataset's ethnicity, noting that performance is "irrelevant with human ethnicity" due to the nature of spark signal detection. This is retrospective data.
• Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition:
  • Sample Size: 95 cases from 56 volunteers.
  • Data Provenance: Includes various ages, genders, field strengths (1.5T, 3.0T), disease conditions (NOR, MINF, DCM, HCM, ARV), and ethnicities (Asian, White, Black). The data is independent of the training data. Implied to be retrospective from UIH MRI systems.
• Inline MOCO:
  • Sample Size: 287 cases in total (105 cardiac perfusion images from 60 patients, 182 cardiac dark blood images from 33 patients).
  • Data Provenance: Acquired from 1.5T and 3T magnetic resonance imaging equipment from UIH. Covers various ages, genders, ethnicities (Asian, White, Black, Hispanic), BMI, field strengths (1.5T, 3.0T), and disease conditions (Positive, Negative, Unknown). The data is independent of the training data. Implied to be retrospective from UIH MRI systems.

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

• AI-assisted Compressed Sensing (ACS):
  • Number of Experts: More than one (plural "radiologists" used).
  • Qualifications: American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians.
• SparkCo:
  • Number of Experts: One expert for real-world SparkCo evaluation.
  • Qualifications: "one experienced evaluator." (Specific qualifications like board certification or years of experience are not provided for this specific evaluator).
• Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition:
  • Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated for ground truth establishment ("gold standard phase indices"). It implies a single, established method or perhaps a consensus by a team, but details are missing.
• Inline MOCO:
  • Number of Experts: Three licensed physicians.
  • Qualifications: U.S. credentials.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• AI-assisted Compressed Sensing (ACS): Not explicitly stated, but implies individual review by "radiologists" to rate diagnostic quality.
• SparkCo: For the real-world dataset, evaluation by "one experienced evaluator."
• Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition: Not explicitly stated; "gold standard phase indices" are referenced, implying a pre-defined or established method without detailing a multi-reader adjudication process.
• Inline MOCO: "Finally, all ground truth was evaluated by three licensed physicians with U.S. credentials." This suggests an adjudication or confirmation process, but the specific method (e.g., 2+1, consensus) is not detailed beyond "evaluated by."

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

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was explicitly described to evaluate human reader improvement with AI assistance. The described studies focus on the standalone performance of the algorithms or a qualitative assessment of images by radiologists for diagnostic quality.

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

• Yes, standalone performance was done for all listed algorithms.
  • ACS: Evaluated quantitatively (SNR, Resolution, Contrast, Uniformity, Structure Measurement) and then qualitatively by radiologists. The quantitative metrics are standalone.
  • SparkCo: Quantitative metrics (Detection Accuracy, PSNR) and qualitative assessment by an experienced evaluator. The quantitative metrics are standalone.
  • Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition: Evaluated quantitatively as the error between algorithmic output and gold standard. This is a standalone performance metric.
  • Inline MOCO: Evaluated using the Dice coefficient, which is a standalone quantitative metric comparing algorithm output to ground truth.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• AI-assisted Compressed Sensing (ACS):
  • Quantitative: Fully-sampled k-space data transformed to image space.
  • Clinical: Radiologist evaluation ("American Board of Radiologists certificated physicians").
• SparkCo:
  • Spark Detection Module: Location of spark points (ground truth for simulated data).
  • Spark Correction Module: Visual assessment by "one experienced evaluator."
• Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition: "Gold standard phase indices" (method for establishing this gold standard is not detailed, but implies expert-derived or a highly accurate reference).
• Inline MOCO: Left ventricular myocardium segmentation annotated by a "well-trained annotator" and "evaluated by three licensed physicians with U.S. credentials." This is an expert consensus/pathology-like ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• AI-assisted Compressed Sensing (ACS): 1,262,912 samples (from a variety of anatomies, image contrasts, and acceleration factors).
• SparkCo: 24,866 spark slices (generated from 61 spark-free cases from 10 volunteers).
• Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition: Not explicitly provided, but stated to be "independent of the data used to test the algorithm."
• Inline MOCO: Not explicitly provided, but stated to be "independent of the data used to test the algorithm."

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

• AI-assisted Compressed Sensing (ACS): Fully-sampled k-space data were collected and transformed to image space as the ground-truth. All data were manually quality controlled.
• SparkCo: "The training dataset for the AI module in SparkCo was generated by simulating spark artifacts from spark-free raw data... a total of 24,866 spark slices, along with the corresponding ground truth (i.e., the location of spark points), were generated for training." This indicates a hybrid approach using real spark-free data to simulate and generate the ground truth for spark locations.
• Inline ED/ES Phases Recognition: Not explicitly provided.
• Inline MOCO: Not explicitly provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

Philips Magnetic Resonance (MR) systems are Medical Electrical Systems indicated for use as a diagnostic device.

This MR system enables trained physicians to obtain cross-sectional images, spectroscopic images and/or spectra of the internal structure of the head, body or extremities, in any orientation, representing the spatial distribution of protons or other nuclei with spin.

Image appearance is determined by many different physical properties of the tissue and the anatomy, the MR scan technique applied, and presence of contrast agents. The use of contrast agents for diagnostic imaging applications should be performed consistent with the approved labeling for the contrast agent.

The trained clinical user can adjust the MR scan parameters to customize image appearance, accelerate image acquisition, and synchronize with the patient's breathing or cardiac cycle. The systems can use combinations of images to produce physical parameters, and related derived images. Images, spectra, and measurements of physical parameters, when interpreted by a trained physician, provide information that may assist diagnosis and therapy planning. The accuracy of determined physical parameters depends on system and scan parameters and must be controlled and validated by the clinical user.

In addition, the Philips MR systems provide imaging capabilities, such as MR fluoroscopy, to guide and evaluate interventional and minimally invasive procedures in the head, body and extremities.

MR Interventional procedures, performed inside or adjacent to the Philips MR system, must be performed with MR Conditional or MR Safe instrumentation as selected and evaluated by the clinical user for use with the specific MR system configuration in the hospital. The appropriateness and use of information from a Philips MR system for a specific interventional procedure and specific MR system configuration must be validated by the clinical user.

The subject Achieva, Intera, Ingenia 1.5T, Ingenia 3.0T, Ingenia 1.5T CX, Ingenia 3.0T CX, Ingenia Elition S, Ingenia Elition X, Ingenia Ambition S, Ingenia Ambition X and MR 5300 MR Systems are 60 cm and 70 cm bore 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla (1.5T and 3.0T) Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices.
In this 510(k) submission, Philips Medical Systems Netherlands B.V. will be addressing the following software changes for the subject device since the last 510(k) submission (primary predicate device (K212673, 11/19/2021), secondary predicate device (K193215, 04/10/2020)):

• Software functionality that allows early detection of severe gradient malfunctions. The system is locked for scanning if a malfunction is detected.
• Smoke detector software support extension from Ingenia Elition S and X to all other 70cm bore systems
• SENSE XL Torso Coil workflow extensions to guide the operator on safe usage of the SENSE XL Torso Coil and monitoring of the SENSE XL Torso Coil temperature

The subject Achieva, Intera, Ingenia 1.5T, Ingenia 3.0T, Ingenia 1.5T CX, Ingenia 3.0T CX, Ingenia Elition S, Ingenia Elition X, Ingenia Ambition S, Ingenia Ambition X and MR 5300 MR Systems are intended to be marketed with the same pulse sequences and coils that are previously cleared by FDA. The accessories to be used with the subject devices have not changed compared to the predicate device.
When Philips MRI system is used in combination with the Philips MR-RT or MR-OR solutions, the user is referred to the dedicated MR-RT and MR-OR Instructions for Use for information on additional accessories that may apply.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and its associated 510(k) Summary for Philips MR Systems (K251808) DO NOT contain the detailed information required to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the manner requested.

This submission is a Special 510(k), which is used for modifications to a manufacturer's own legally marketed device where the modified device is still substantially equivalent to the cleared device, and the modifications do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. This type of submission often relies heavily on risk management and performance testing to demonstrate that the changes have not degraded the safety or effectiveness of the device.

The document primarily focuses on software changes related to safety-critical functions (gradient malfunction detection, smoke detector interlock, SENSE XL Torso Coil temperature monitoring) and asserts substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

Here's why the requested information cannot be fully extracted and what can be inferred:

Summary of Information NOT Present in the Document:

• Detailed Acceptance Criteria Table with Performance Data: The document states that "The verification and/or validation test results demonstrate that the subject... MR Systems meet the acceptance criteria and are adequate for the intended use" (Page 8), but it does not provide a specific table of these acceptance criteria nor the numerical performance data for the device against them. The information provided about the software changes focuses on their functionality and equivalence rather than quantitative performance metrics (e.g., specific thresholds for gradient malfunction detection sensitivity/specificity, or precise temperature monitoring accuracy).
• Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance: No specific test set sample sizes (e.g., number of patients, number of scans) are mentioned. The testing described is "Non-Clinical verification and validation tests," implying it's not based on patient data in the typical sense for clinical performance.
• Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth: Since no clinical data or diagnostic performance studies are described (only non-clinical V&V), there's no mention of experts establishing ground truth for a test set.
• Adjudication Method for Test Set: Not applicable as no clinical study with expert reads is described.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not mentioned as no clinical study evaluating human reader performance is described.
• Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance: While the software features operate automatically, no quantitative standalone performance data (e.g., TPR, FPR for malfunction detection) is provided. The focus is on the functionality of the safety mechanisms (e.g., "system is locked," "enforces a cool down period").
• Type of Ground Truth Used: For the safety software functions, the "ground truth" would likely be derived from engineering specifications, simulated fault conditions, or direct sensor readings validated against known physical parameters, rather than expert consensus on medical images or pathology. The document hints at this by stating "verification and/or validation test results demonstrate that the subject... meet the acceptance criteria and are adequate for the intended use."
• Sample Size for Training Set & Ground Truth Establishment for Training Set: Since these are modifications to existing, cleared devices, and the described changes are primarily safety and workflow enhancements, it's unlikely that new deep learning models requiring large imaging training sets were developed for these specific features. If machine learning was involved in the gradient malfunction detection, the specific training methodology is not disclosed. The document implies engineering-based verification and validation rather than large-scale data-driven model training.

Information that CAN be Inferred or Directly Stated:

• Study Type: Non-clinical verification and validation tests, adhering to recognized international and FDA-recognized consensus standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1-6 for usability, IEC 62304 for software lifecycle, ISO 14971 for risk management).
• Overall Conclusion: The non-clinical testing demonstrates that the modified MR Systems "meet the acceptance criteria and are adequate for the intended use" and that "all risks are sufficiently mitigated, that no new risks are introduced, and that the overall residual risks are acceptable." This leads to the conclusion of substantial equivalence.
• Basis for Ground Truth (Implied): For the safety features, the "ground truth" is established by engineering specifications, simulated fault conditions, and internal testing to ensure the alarm/lockout mechanisms activate correctly under defined hazardous conditions and that the temperature monitoring is accurate.
• Key Software Changes and Their Demonstrated Functionality:
  • Severe Gradient Malfunction Detection: Modifies the system to lock when the frequency of gradient amplifier errors exceeds predefined thresholds, preventing severe malfunctions. The previous system only aborted individual errors and allowed continuation. The "study" here would be demonstrating that the system properly locks when these new thresholds are met and does not falsely lock otherwise.
  • Smoke Detector Software Support Extension: Extends existing 60cm MR System smoke detector interlock software to 70cm MR Systems. The "study" would show that the same logic and safety performance are maintained on the new platform.
  • SENSE XL Torso Coil Workflow Extensions: Software now enforces a cool-down period for the coil and guides the operator on temperature management. The "study" likely involved testing the logic of the cool-down enforcement and the accuracy/timing of the temperature warnings.

Based on the provided document, here's the most that can be extracted and inferred about the acceptance criteria and studies:

Device: Philips Achieva, Intera, Ingenia 1.5T, Ingenia 3.0T, Ingenia 1.5T CX, Ingenia 3.0T CX, Ingenia Elition S, Ingenia Elition X, Ingenia Ambition S, Ingenia Ambition X and MR 5300 MR Systems (software modifications).

Purpose of the Study: To demonstrate that software changes implemented for gradient malfunction detection, smoke detector interlock extension, and SENSE XL Torso Coil temperature monitoring do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness and that the modified devices remain substantially equivalent to their predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
The document states "Non-Clinical verification and validation tests have been performed." This implies engineering-level testing rather than patient-based clinical studies. No specific sample sizes (e.g., number of scan instances, number of patients) are provided. The data provenance is internal Philips testing, likely performed in the Netherlands (Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V.). It is retrospective in the sense that it evaluates modifications to existing systems.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications:
Not applicable. Ground truth for these safety software functions is based on engineering specifications and direct measurement/simulation of system states and physical parameters (e.g., gradient performance, temperature, smoke detection), not on expert interpretations of medical images.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
Not applicable. There is no mention of human readers or adjudication processes for clinical image interpretation.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done or reported in this 510(k) summary. The nature of these software modifications (safety and workflow enhancements) does not typically necessitate such a study for 510(k) clearance, especially in a Special 510(k). The document explicitly states "the indications for use remain unchanged and there were no technological characteristics relative to the predicate device that would require clinical testing."

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance was done:
Yes, in the sense that the software features (e.g., gradient malfunction detection, temperature monitoring logic) are algorithms operating on system data. However, quantitative performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for these algorithms are not explicitly provided in the summary. The "performance" described is functional—that the system does lock, does enforce cool-downs, etc., when conditions are met.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:
For the software changes described, the ground truth is primarily based on:
* Engineering Specifications: Defining thresholds for gradient errors, acceptable temperature ranges for the coil.
* Simulated Fault Conditions: Testing whether the gradient malfunction detection activates correctly under controlled, simulated error rates or conditions.
* Direct Physical Measurements: Verifying the accuracy of temperature sensors and the initiation of cool-down periods.
* Compliance with Standards: Ensuring the robust implementation of software safety features as per recognized industry standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:
The document does not specify a training set sample size. Given the nature of the software changes (safety logic and workflow enhancements) and this being a Special 510(k), it is unlikely to involve large-scale machine learning model training on medical image datasets. If any internal parameters were 'trained' (e.g., for optimal gradient error thresholds), the details are not disclosed.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
Not explicitly stated. If there were any trainable parameters for the safety functions, the ground truth would have been established via engineering analysis, simulation, and empirical testing to define the optimal setpoints for safety interlocks and warnings.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MAGNETOM system is indicated for use as a magnetic resonance diagnostic device (MRDD) that produces transverse, sagittal, coronal and oblique cross sectional images, spectroscopic images and/or spectra, and that displays the internal structure and/or function of the head, body, or extremities. Other physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra may also be produced. Depending on the region of interest, contrast agents may be used. These images and/or spectra and the physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra when interpreted by a trained physician yield information that may assist in diagnosis.

The MAGNETOM system may also be used for imaging during interventional procedures when performed with MR compatible devices such as in-room displays and MR Safe biopsy needles.

The subject device, MAGNETOM Avanto Fit with software syngo MR XA70A, consists of new and modified software and hardware that is similar to what is currently offered on the predicate device, MAGNETOM Avanto Fit with syngo MR XA50A (K220151).

A high-level summary of the new and modified hardware and software is provided below:

For MAGNETOM Avanto Fit with syngo MR XA70:

Hardware

New Hardware:
myExam 3D Camera
BM Head/Neck 20

Modified Hardware:
Sanaflex (cushions for patient positioning)

Software

New Features and Applications:
myExam Autopilot Brain
myExam Autopilot Knee
3D Whole Heart
HASTE_interactive
GRE_PC
Open Recon
Deep Resolve Gain
Fleet Reference Scan
Physio logging
complex averaging
AutoMate Cardiac
Ghost Reduction
BLADE diffusion
Beat Sensor
Deep Resolve Sharp
Deep Resolve Boost and Deep Resolve Boost (TSE)
Deep Resolve Boost HASTE
Deep Resolve Boost EPI Diffusion

Modified Features and Applications:
SPACE improvement (high band)
SPACE improvement (incr grad)
Brain Assist
Eco power mode
myExam Angio Advanced Assist (Test Bolus)

The subject device, MAGNETOM Skyra Fit with software syngo MR XA70A, consists of new and modified software and hardware that is similar to what is currently offered on the predicate device, MAGNETOM Skyra Fit with syngo MR XA50A (K220589).

A high-level summary of the new and modified hardware and software is provided below:

For MAGNETOM Skyra Fit with syngo MR XA70:

Hardware

New Hardware:
myExam 3D Camera

Modified Hardware:
Sanaflex (cushions for patient positioning)

Software

New Features and Applications:
Beat Sensor
HASTE_interactive
GRE_PC
3D Whole Heart
Deep Resolve Gain
Open Recon
Ghost Reduction
Fleet Reference Scan
BLADE diffusion
HASTE diffusion
Physio logging
complex averaging
Deep Resolve Swift Brain
Deep Resolve Sharp
Deep Resolve Boost and Deep Resolve Boost (TSE)
Deep Resolve Boost HASTE
Deep Resolve Boost EPI Diffusion
AutoMate Cardiac
SVS_EDIT

Modified Features and Applications:
SPACE improvement (high band)
SPACE improvement (incr grad)
Brain Assist
Eco power mode
myExam Angio Advanced Assist (Test Bolus)

The subject device, MAGNETOM Sola Fit with software syngo MR XA70A, consists of new and modified software and hardware that is similar to what is currently offered on the predicate device, MAGNETOM Sola Fit with syngo MR XA51A (K221733).

A high-level summary of the new and modified hardware and software is provided below:

For MAGNETOM Sola Fit with syngo MR XA70:

Hardware

New Hardware:
myExam 3D Camera

Modified Hardware:
Sanaflex (cushions for patient positioning)

Software

New Features and Applications:
GRE_PC
3D Whole Heart
Ghost Reduction
Fleet Reference Scan
BLADE diffusion
Physio logging
Open Recon
Complex averaging
Deep Resolve Sharp
Deep Resolve Boost and Deep Resolve Boost (TSE)
Deep Resolve Boost HASTE
Deep Resolve Boost EPI Diffusion
AutoMate Cardiac
Implant suite

Modified Features and Applications:
SPACE improvement (high band)
SPACE improvement (incr grad)
Brain Assist
Eco power mode

The subject device, MAGNETOM Viato.Mobile with software syngo MR XA70A, consists of new and modified software and hardware that is similar to what is currently offered on the predicate device, MAGNETOM Viato.Mobile with syngo MR XA51A (K240608).

A high-level summary of the new and modified hardware and software is provided below:

For MAGNETOM Viato.Mobile with syngo MR XA70:

Hardware

New Hardware:
n.a.

Modified Hardware:
Sanaflex (cushions for patient positioning)

Software

New Features and Applications:
GRE_PC
3D Whole Heart
Ghost Reduction
Fleet Reference Scan
BLADE diffusion
Physio logging
Open Recon
Complex averaging
Deep Resolve Sharp
Deep Resolve Boost and Deep Resolve Boost (TSE)
Deep Resolve Boost HASTE
Deep Resolve Boost EPI Diffusion
AutoMate Cardiac
Implant suite

Modified Features and Applications:
SPACE improvement (high band)
SPACE improvement (incr grad)
Brain Assist
Eco power mode

Furthermore, the following minor updates and changes were conducted for the subject devices:

Low SAR Protocol minor update (for all subject devices but MAGNETOM Skyra Fit): the goal of the SAR adaptive protocols was to be able to perform knee, spine, heart and brain examinations with 50% of the max allowed SAR values in normal mode for head and whole-body SAR. The SAR reduction was achieved by parameter adaptations like Flip angle, TR, RF Pulse Type, Turbo Factor, concatenations. For cardiac clinically accepted alternative imaging contrasts are used (submitted with K232494).

Implementation of image sorting prepare for PACS (submitted with K231560).

Implementation of improved DICOM color support (submitted with K232494).

Needle intervention AddIn was added all subject device (submitted with K232494).

Inline Image Filter switchable for users: in the subject device, users have the ability to switch the "Inline image filter" (implicite Filter) on or off. This filter is an image-based filter that can be applied to specific pulse sequence types. The function of the filter remains unchanged from the previous device MAGNETOM Sola with syngo MR XA61A (K232535).

SVS_EDIT is newly added for MAGNETOM Skyra Fit, but without any changes (submitted with K203443)

Brain Assist received an improvement and is identical to that of snygo MR XA61A (K232535)

Open Recon is introduced for all systems. The function of Open Recon remains unchanged from the previous submissions (submitted with K221733).

Lock TR and FA in Bold received a minor UI update

Implant Suite is newly introduced for MAGNETOM Sola Fit and MAGNETOM Viato.Mobile, but without any changes (submitted with K232535)

myExam Autopilot Brain and myExam Autopilot Knee are newly introduced for the subject device MAGNETOM AVANTO Fit and are unchanged from previous submissions (submitted with K221733).

myExam Angio Advanced Assist (Test Bolus) received a bug fixing and minimal UI improvements.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for various MAGNETOM MRI Systems. While it details new and modified software and hardware features, it does not include specific acceptance criteria or a study that "proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in terms of performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy for a diagnostic task.

Instead, the document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. This is achieved by:

• Stating that the indications for use are the same.
• Listing numerous predicate and reference devices.
• Detailing hardware and software changes.
• Mentioning non-clinical tests like software verification and validation, sample clinical images, and image quality assessment to show that the new features maintain an "equivalent safety and performance profile" to the predicate devices.
• Referencing scientific publications for certain features to support their underlying principles and utility.
• Briefly describing the training and validation data for two AI features: Deep Resolve Boost and Deep Resolve Sharp, but without performance acceptance criteria or detailed results.

Therefore, much of the requested information cannot be extracted from this document because it is not a study report detailing clinical performance against predefined acceptance criteria for a specific diagnostic outcome.

However, I can extract the information related to the AI features as best as possible from the "AI Features/Applications training and validation" section (Page 16).

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details (Limited to AI Features)

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Deep Resolve Boost:
  • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" size. The document mentions "training and validation data" for over 25,000 TSE slices, over 10,000 HASTE slices (for refinement), and over 1,000,000 EPI Diffusion slices. It's unclear what proportion of this was used specifically for final testing, or if the "validation" mentioned includes the final performance evaluation.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, described as "Input data was retrospectively created from the ground truth by data manipulation and augmentation." Country of origin is not specified.
• Deep Resolve Sharp:
  • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" size. The document mentions "training and validation" on more than 10,000 high resolution 2D images. Similar to Deep Resolve Boost, it's unclear what proportion was specifically for final testing.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, described as "Input data was retrospectively created from the ground truth by data manipulation." Country of origin is not specified.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The definition of "ground truth" for the AI features refers to the acquired datasets themselves rather than expert-labeled annotations. Visual comparisons are mentioned as part of the evaluation, but without details on expert involvement or qualifications.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not provided in the document. While "visual comparisons" and "visual rating" are mentioned, no specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is described.

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

No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study demonstrating human reader improvement with AI assistance is not described in this document. The focus of the AI features (Deep Resolve Boost and Deep Resolve Sharp) is on image quality enhancement (denoising, sharpness) and reconstruction rather than assisting human readers in a diagnostic task that can be quantified by an effect size.

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

Yes, the evaluation of Deep Resolve Boost and Deep Resolve Sharp, based on metrics like PSNR, SSIM, and perceptual loss, and "visual comparisons" or "visual rating" appears to be an assessment of the algorithm's performance in enhancing image quality in a standalone capacity, without direct human-in-the-loop interaction for diagnosis.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• Deep Resolve Boost: "The acquired datasets (as described above) represent the ground truth for the training and validation." This implies the original, full-quality, unaltered MRI scan data. Further, "Input data was retrospectively created from the ground truth by data manipulation and augmentation. This process includes further under-sampling of the data by discarding k-space lines, lowering of the SNR level by addition Restricted of noise and mirroring of k-space data."
• Deep Resolve Sharp: "The acquired datasets represent the ground truth for the training and validation." Similar to Boost, this refers to original, high-resolution MRI scan data. For training, "k-space data has been cropped such that only the center part of the data was used as input. With this method corresponding low-resolution data as input and high-resolution data as output / ground truth were created for training and validation."

8. The sample size for the training set

• Deep Resolve Boost:
  • TSE: more than 25,000 slices
  • HASTE (for refinement): more than 10,000 HASTE slices
  • EPI Diffusion: more than 1,000,000 slices
• Deep Resolve Sharp: more than 10,000 high resolution 2D images.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Deep Resolve Boost: The ground truth was established by the "acquired datasets" themselves (full-quality MRI scans). The training input data was then derived from this ground truth by simulating degraded images (e.g., under-sampling, adding noise).
• Deep Resolve Sharp: Similarly, the ground truth was the "acquired datasets" (high-resolution MRI scans). The training input data was derived by cropping k-space data to create corresponding low-resolution inputs.

Ask a specific question about this device