Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K070231
    Device Name
    ORION
    Date Cleared
    2007-04-24

    (90 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    886.1120
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K023719,K061768,K014274

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    ORION is an ophthalmic camera that is indicated for use in capturing images of the retina.

    Device Description

    The Nidek Technologies Srl ORION is an instrument for the diagnosis of retinal diseases. It is able to capture color images of the patient retina through CCD cameras. The fundus camera ORION is supplied with Xenon light and IR LEDs sources suitable for performing the above described examinations. The system includes also the dedicated NAVIS software (running with Windows XP e 2000 operative system).

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the ORION fundus camera, but it does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a study that evaluates the device against such criteria. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the ORION device, focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than detailed performance evaluations against predefined clinical endpoints.

    Here's a breakdown of what the document does state and what it lacks in relation to your request:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

    • Lacking. The document states: "The performance data indicate that the fundus camera ORION device meets all specified requirements, and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device." However, it does not elaborate on what those "specified requirements" are, nor does it present any specific performance metrics or data in a table format. The assessment is qualitative and focuses on equivalence rather than meeting numerical criteria.

    2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

    • Lacking. The document makes no mention of a test set, sample sizes, or data provenance for any performance study.

    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

    • Lacking. No information is provided regarding experts or ground truth establishment.

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

    • Lacking. No adjudication method is mentioned.

    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

    • Lacking. The device is a fundus camera, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool for interpretation. Therefore, an MRMC study related to AI assistance for human readers is not applicable to this device as described. The document focuses on the camera's ability to capture images.

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

    • Lacking/Not Applicable. This is a hardware device (ophthalmic camera) with accompanying software for image management (NAVIS). It is not an algorithm that operates in a "standalone" diagnostic capacity or replaces human interpretation. Its performance is related to image acquisition quality, not automated diagnosis.

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

    • Lacking. No ground truth information is provided as no detailed performance study results are presented.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    • Lacking. No training set is mentioned for any algorithm as the device itself is an image acquisition system, not explicitly an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

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

    • Lacking. Not applicable, as no training set is mentioned.

    In summary: The provided 510(k) document for the ORION fundus camera primarily demonstrates substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on technological characteristics and intended use. It does not provide detailed performance data, acceptance criteria, or information on specific clinical studies that would fulfill the requested categories. The statement "The performance data indicate that the fundus camera ORION device meets all specified requirements" is a high-level declaration without supporting evidence in this document.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1