Search Results

These are stationary x-ray systems intended for obtaining radiographic images of various portions of the human body in a clinical environment. The devices are not intended for mammography

This is a complete stationary diagnostic x-ray system employing digital x-ray panels coupled with image acquisition software. The key features are: Ceiling Tube Suspension, Motorized Movements, Auto-Positioning, Tube Mounted 10" Touch Screen, Elevating 6 Way Table Patient Load: 5501bs, Single User Interface, High Frequency Generator. This ergonomic design incorporates automatic motorized positioning, creating an efficient workflow increasing the patient throughput. Precision offers automatic stitching enhancing the workflow further. Tube, vertical wall stand and table have extended range of motion for easy patient positioning. The acquisition software is installed on a Windows compatible workstation. The high frequency generator is available in different power ratings. All components are either 510(k) exempt or previously cleared. Generators are available in 50, 65, 80 kW (High Frequency) models.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Arcoma AB 0180 Intuition & 0072 Precision Stationary Digital X-Ray Systems (K140683):

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly list quantitative acceptance criteria for the device's performance. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Arcoma Intuition, K073632) through functional comparisons, non-clinical tests, and a qualitative clinical evaluation.

The "acceptance criteria" can be inferred from the overall claim of substantial equivalence and the scope of the testing performed, primarily that the modified device is "as safe, as effective, and performs as well as or better than the legally marketed device."

• Individual and system performance.
• Electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility.
• Software integration validation.
• Risk analysis.
• Compliance with IEC safety and EMC standards. | Met. "The modified unit has undergone individual and system performance tests, electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility testing, as well as software integration validation and risk analysis. The unit meets IEC safety and EMC standards."

Functionally identical capabilities to predicate device despite panel, generator, and tube stand modifications. Specifically, new Canon digital panels (K103591, K102012) each have their own 510(k) clearances, implying their individual performance meets regulatory standards. |
| Clinical Performance:

• Diagnostic quality of images. | Met. "Clinical images were obtained in accordance with the FDA Guidance Document on Solid State Imaging Devices. They were evaluated by professional radiologist and found to be of good diagnostic quality." |
  | Overall Equivalence:
• As safe and effective as predicate.
• Performs as well as or better than predicate. | Met. "The nonclinical and clinical tests that the device is as safe, as effective, and performs as well as or better than the legally marketed device identified in paragraph 3."

Technological characteristics are "essentially the same" as the predicate, with modifications to digital panels, x-ray generator, and tube stands that retain "functionally identical capabilities." New panels offer higher resolution and wired/wireless options, suggesting potential improvements without detrimental impact. |

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify a numerical sample size for the clinical images used in the clinical study. It states only that "Clinical images were obtained."
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

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

• Number of Experts: The document states that clinical images "were evaluated by professional radiologist" (singular, though likely implying multiple, it does not specify the number).
• Qualifications of Experts: The experts are described only as "professional radiologist." No further details on their experience level (e.g., "10 years of experience") are provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the clinical image evaluation. It simply states that the images "were evaluated by professional radiologist and found to be of good diagnostic quality."

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study described is a qualitative evaluation of image quality by radiologists, comparing the modified device's performance to an implicit standard of "good diagnostic quality" rather than a direct comparison against the predicate by multiple readers on multiple cases. Therefore, no effect size of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance is applicable or reported, as this device is a traditional x-ray system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This device is a digital X-ray system, and its primary output is human-interpretable images, not an automated diagnostic algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the clinical images seems to be based on expert consensus (or individual expert opinion) regarding "good diagnostic quality." The text does not mention pathology, outcomes data, or other objective ground truth measures for evaluating the images.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. This device is a traditional digital X-ray system, not an AI or machine learning algorithm that requires a training set. The "software integration validation" mentioned refers to the system's operational software, not an AI model.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm described.

Ask a specific question about this device

These Digital Radiographic Systems are intended for use by a qualified/trained doctor or technician on both adult and pediatric subjects for taking diagnostic radiographic exposures of the skall, spinal column, chest, abdomen, extremities, and other body parts. Applications can be performed with the patient sitting, standing, or lying in the prone or supine position.

These digital diagnostic x-ray systems consist of a tubehead and collimator assembly mounted on a U-Arm, along with a generator, generator control, and an xray table. Power ratings for the available generators are in the rage of 50 kw to 80 kW. Exposure voltage range varies from 40 - 125 KV or 40 - 150 kV with current of 300 - 100 mA. Exposure time is 1 ms - 10 s. This device represents a new combination of already cleared Sedecal and Canon products.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Sedecal Millennium Plus Digital Diagnostic X-Ray System. It states that the new device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. However, this document does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, a study that proves the device meets those criteria, or details regarding performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement in a study as requested.

The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence by comparing the new device's characteristics and intended use to those of its predicate devices (Sedecal Millennium Digital K042876 and Sedecal X Plus LP Plus K062335) and by stating that it passes bench and test laboratory evaluations to applicable standards (21 CFR 1020.30 and IEC 60601).

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and detailed information based on the content of this document. The document explicitly states:

"The results of bench and test laboratory indicates that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate devices."
and
"After analyzing bench and external laboratory testing to applicable standards, it is the conclusion of Sedecal Inc that the Scdecal Millennium Plus Digital Diagnostic X-Ray Systems are as safe and effective as the predicate device, have few technological differences, and has no new indications for use, thus rendering them substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

This indicates that general safety and effectiveness testing was conducted, but the specific details of the acceptance criteria, study design, performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth, or expert involvement are not disclosed in this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

These Digital Radiographic Systems are intended for use by a qualified/trained doctor or technician on both adult and pediatric subjects for taking diagnostic radiographic exposures of the skull, spinal column, chest, abdomen, extremities, and other body parts. Applications can be performed with the patient sitting, standing, or lying in the prone or supine position.

These digital diagnostic x-ray systems consist of a tubehead/collimator assembly mounted on a U-Arm, along with a generator, generator control, and an x-ray table. Power ratings for the available generators are in the rage of 50 kw to 80 kW. Exposure voltage range varies from 40 - 125 KV or 40 - 150 kV, with current of 300 - 100 mA. Exposure time is 1 ms - 10 s. This device represents a new combination of already cleared Sedecal and Canon products.

The provided 510(k) summary for the Sedecal X-Plus LP Plus Digital Diagnostic X-Ray System (K090238) does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a specific study proving the device meets those criteria, as you would typically expect for performance data of AI/CADe devices.

This submission is for a traditional X-ray system, and the approval is based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a performance study with defined acceptance criteria for diagnostic accuracy.

However, I can extract and infer some information based on the document's content:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: For this type of device, the acceptance criteria are generally related to demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices, primarily focusing on safety and effectiveness through comparison of technical characteristics and adherence to relevant performance standards.
• Reported Device Performance: The document states, "The results of bench and test laboratory indicates that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate devices."

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The approval is based on "bench and test laboratory" results and comparison of specifications, not a clinical test set with patient data for diagnostic accuracy assessment.

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

• This information is not applicable/provided. No clinical reader study or ground truth establishment relevant to diagnostic accuracy is described.

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

• This information is not applicable/provided.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a digital X-ray system, not an AI or CADe device designed to assist human readers or provide diagnostic interpretations.

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

• No, a standalone performance study was not done. This is an imaging acquisition device, not an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this submission revolves around engineering performance verified by "bench and external laboratory testing to applicable standards" (e.g., 21 CFR 1020.30, IEC-60601) to demonstrate the device functions as intended and is safe. It's not about diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This isn't an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device