Search Results

The ENNOVATE Spinal System is intended for anterior/anterolateral and posterior, non-cervical pedicle and non-pedicle fixation. Fixation is limited to skeletally mature patients and is intended to be used as an adjunct to fusion using autograft or allograft. The ENNOVATE System can be used in both an Open and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). The device is indicated for treatment of the following acute and chronic instabilities or deformities.

1. Degenerative disc disease (defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies).
2. Spondylolisthesis,
3. Trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation)
4. Spinal Stenosis.
5. Deformities or Curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis),
6. Tumor.
7. Pseudoarthrosis, and
8. Failed previous fusion

The ENNOVATE Spinal System is an implant system used to correct spinal deformity and facilitate the biological process of spinal fusion. This system is intended for posterior use in the thoracic, lumbar and sacral areas of the spine. This system includes polyaxial screws of varying diameters and lengths, rod-to-rod and cross connectors of various styles and lengths. All implant components are top loading and top tightening. The implants in this system are manufactured from titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V), conforming to ISO 5832-3.
The ENNOVATE Spinal System is a spinal rod and screw system. This system's polyaxial screws can be rigidly locked into a wide range of configurations, therefore allowing each construct to be formed to the needs of an individual patient. Rods of this system may be shaped intraoperatively to correct or maintain proper spinal curvature.

This document describes a spinal system, not a device that would typically have acceptance criteria and performance metrics in the way an AI/ML or diagnostic device would. This is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "ENNOVATE Spinal System," which is a metallic implant system for spinal fusion.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than establishing novelty or specific performance criteria like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy for a diagnostic tool.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to this type of device and regulatory submission. I will explain why each category is not applicable and what information is provided in the document.

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

• Not Applicable. For a spinal implant system like the ENNOVATE Spinal System, "acceptance criteria" are typically related to mechanical and material performance standards, not diagnostic accuracy or clinical outcomes in the same way as an AI/ML device. The "performance" reported is compliance with these standards through mechanical testing.

Note: The document states that "All required testing per 'Draft Guidance for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications (510(k)s) Applications for Orthopedic Devices-The Basic Elements' were done where applicable. In addition, testing per the guidance 'Spinal System 510(k)s May 3, 2004' was completed where applicable." This indicates that the device met the performance requirements outlined in these guidance documents, primarily through mechanical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

The following sections are NOT APPLICABLE because this document describes a physical spinal implant system, not a diagnostic AI/ML device requiring clinical performance evaluation with ground truth.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic. No 'test set' of clinical data for diagnostic performance is described. The 'test set' here refers to physical devices tested in a lab.

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)

• Not Applicable. Ground truth, in the context of expert review, is for diagnostic devices or AI, not for mechanical spinal implants.

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

• Not Applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical endpoints or diagnostic interpretations, not for mechanical testing of an implant.

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

• Not Applicable. This is specific to AI/ML diagnostic tools, not an orthopedic implant.

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

• Not Applicable. This is specific to AI/ML diagnostic tools.

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

• Not Applicable. Ground truth refers to the definitive determination of a condition for diagnostic purposes. For a spinal implant, the "truth" is whether it meets engineering specifications and functions mechanically as intended.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This is for AI/ML models. No training set is involved for this mechanical device.

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

• Not Applicable. As above, no training set or ground truth in this context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The tangoRS™ is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine (T1-S2). When used as a posterior spine thoracic/lumbar system, the tangoRS is intended for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (as defined by back pain of discogenic with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, spinal deformities (i.e., degenerative scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis), fracture, spinal tumor, pseudarthrosis and failed previous fusion.

The tangoRS™ consists of rods, polyaxial pedicle screws and crosslinks with locking set screws. The components are available in various sizes to accommodate differing patient anatomy. Rods are available in one diameter and a variety of lengths. Polyaxial screws are available in a variety of diameter-length combinations. Crosslinks are offered in four lengths. The purpose of this submission is to add components (a screw size and crosslink options) and two indications for use.

The provided 510(k) summary for the tangoRS™ multifunctional posterior system describes its performance through mechanical testing. Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify a "sample size" in terms of individual patients or clinical cases for a test set. The performance evaluation is based on mechanical testing of "worst case tangoRS™ constructs." The exact number of constructs tested is not provided, but it would typically involve multiple samples for each test condition to ensure reproducibility.
• Data Provenance: The data is generated from in-vitro (benchtop) mechanical testing, not from patient-derived data. Therefore, there's no country of origin for clinical data, and it is not retrospective or prospective in the clinical sense.

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

This information is not applicable to this type of submission. Mechanical testing does not involve human experts establishing "ground truth" on patient data. The "ground truth" for mechanical testing is established by the specified ASTM F1717 standard and the performance of predicate devices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable as the study is mechanical testing, not a clinical study involving human judgment that would require adjudication.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission relies on mechanical bench testing, not clinical studies involving human readers.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical medical implant (pedicle screw system), not an algorithm or software. Therefore, there's no concept of "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm. The performance described is inherent to the device's physical and mechanical properties.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" used for this type of device and submission is based on:

• ASTM F1717 standards: These provide the accepted methodology and criteria for testing spinal implant constructs.
• Performance of predicate devices: The tangoRS™ system is compared against the mechanical performance of previously cleared predicate devices (flamenco™ {K102853}, CD HORIZON® {K031655/K041460}, Expedium {K041119/K062196}, tangoRS™ {K052385}). The implicit "ground truth" is that if the new device performs "as well as or better than" these established devices under standardized testing, it is considered safe and effective.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of mechanical testing for a physical implant. The design of the tangoRS™ system is based on established engineering principles and knowledge gained from predicate devices, but there isn't a "training set" of data in the machine learning sense.

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

This is not applicable as there is no "training set" for this type of device and study. The physical design and materials are chosen based on known biomechanical requirements and historical performance of similar devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EXPEDIUM Spine System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

The EXPEDIUM Spine System is intended for noncervical pedicle fixation and nonpedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The subject EXPEDIUM Spine System components consist of designs that interface to 5.5mm and 6.35mm rods and are available in various geometries and sizes.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the EXPEDIUM Spine System, a medical device for spinal fixation. It is not a traditional AI/ML device approval, therefore much of the requested information about AI model performance, training sets, and ground truth establishment is not applicable.

Here's the relevant information based on the provided text:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that "Performance data per ASTM F 1798 were submitted to characterize the subject EXPEDIUM Spine System components addressed in this notification." This implies that the acceptance criteria are tied to the standards outlined in ASTM F 1798. However, the specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., maximum deflection, fatigue life, strength) and the reported performance values are not provided in the summary. The document only confirms that data was submitted, not the results themselves.

Note: For medical devices like spinal fixation systems, acceptance criteria typically involve detailed mechanical testing (e.g., static and dynamic compression, bending, torsion), biocompatibility, and material characterization to ensure safety and effectiveness. The ASTM F 1798 standard specifically deals with the fatigue testing of intervertebral body fusion devices.

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

The document describes mechanical performance testing, not data analysis or human subject testing in the traditional sense of a "test set" for an AI model. Therefore, the concept of sample size for a "test set" and "data provenance" (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) as it applies to an AI/ML device is not applicable here. The "test set" for this device would refer to the physical components subjected to mechanical tests. The specific number of components tested is not provided in the summary.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

This information is not applicable as this is a physical medical device (spinal fixation system) and not an AI/ML product. The "ground truth" for such a device is established through adherence to engineering specifications, material science principles, and mechanical testing standards (like ASTM F 1798). Experts involved would be engineers, material scientists, and potentially surgeons for clinical relevance, but their role is not in establishing a data "ground truth" as it would be for an AI model.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This concept is also not applicable as this is a physical medical device. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are used for resolving discrepancies in expert labeling or diagnoses for AI/ML training or evaluation datasets.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic or image-analysis AI/ML systems where human readers interpret cases with and without AI assistance to measure improved performance. This device is a physical implant.

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

This question is not applicable as the device is a physical spinal implant, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is based on engineering standards and mechanical test results. Specifically, the summary states "Performance data per ASTM F 1798 were submitted." ASTM F 1798 is a standard specification for fatigue test performance of spinal artificial disc prostheses and components. Therefore, the ground truth is derived from objective mechanical testing outcomes compared against established engineering standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML product. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The design and manufacturing process would involve iterative engineering and testing, but not in the sense of an AI training set.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as #8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EXPEDIUM Spine System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

The EXPEDIUM™ Spine System is intended for noncervical pedicle fixation and nonpedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The subject EXPEDIUM Spine System components consist of 4.5mm and 6.35mm rods and are available in various geometries and sizes.

The provided text describes the EXPEDIUM Spine System, a medical device intended for spinal immobilization and stabilization. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study designs, or performance metrics in a way that would allow for a complete answer to your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets them.

The document is a 510(k) summary and FDA clearance letter, which primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a detailed performance study against pre-defined acceptance criteria.

Here's a breakdown of what can be gleaned and what is missing, structured as requested:

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

Explanation: The document states that "Performance data per ASTM F 1717 were submitted." ASTM F 1717 is a standard specification for spinal implant constructs in vitro, likely involving mechanical testing (e.g., fatigue, static strength). However, the specific acceptance criteria (e.g., "must withstand X cycles at Y load," or "static strength must exceed Z N-m") and the device's measured performance against those criteria are not provided in this summary. The summary confirms that data was submitted to characterize the device, implying that a study was conducted, but it does not present the results or the pass/fail thresholds.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified for any test set. The ASTM F 1717 standard would typically define the number of constructs to be tested, but this detail is not present in the summary.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It's an in-vitro mechanical test, so "country of origin of data" is less relevant than for clinical data, but the location of the testing facility is not provided. Retrospective or prospective classification is not applicable to an in-vitro mechanical test.

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)

• This question is not applicable to the device and performance data described. The device is a spinal implant system, and the performance data cited (ASTM F 1717) refers to mechanical properties, not diagnostic performance or clinical outcomes requiring expert interpretation to establish ground truth.

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

• Not applicable. As the performance data pertains to mechanical testing (ASTM F 1717), there is no need for expert adjudication. Mechanical tests follow standardized protocols.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a spinal implant system, not a diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted device. Therefore, MRMC studies involving human readers and AI assistance are not relevant.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical spinal implant system, not a software algorithm.

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

• Not applicable in the typical sense of ground truth for diagnostic devices. For mechanical testing (ASTM F 1717), the "ground truth" is established by the physical properties and behavior of the device components under controlled test conditions, measured against the specifications of the standard. There is no expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data used to establish "ground truth" for this type of performance assessment.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" for a physical medical device undergoing mechanical performance testing. This concept applies to machine learning algorithms.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8).

Summary of available information:

The 510(k) summary indicates that the EXPEDIUM Spine System is a Class III medical device intended for spinal immobilization and stabilization. It states that "Performance data per ASTM F 1717 were submitted to characterize the subject EXPEDIUM™ Spine System components." This implies that a study was conducted to evaluate the mechanical properties of the device according to the ASTM F 1717 standard. However, the specific details of this study, including the acceptance criteria, the actual performance results, sample sizes, or any form of "ground truth" that would be applicable to diagnostic or AI devices, are not present in the provided document. The document primarily serves to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, allowing it to proceed to market without a full PMA.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EXPEDIUM Spine System is intended to provide immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments in skeletally mature patients as an adjunct to fusion in the treatment of acute and chronic instabilities or deformities of the thoracic, lumbar and sacral spine.

The EXPEDIUM™ Spine System is intended for noncervical pedicle fixation and nonpedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The subject EXPEDIUM Spine System components consist of 5.5mm rods and are available in various geometries and sizes.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the EXPEDIUM Spine System, structured to answer your questions:

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the EXPEDIUM Spine System, specifically for additions to the existing system. The primary goal of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily to prove efficacy or performance against specific clinical acceptance criteria in the same way a PMA would. Therefore, the study details you're asking for, particularly concerning AI/algorithm performance and human reader improvement, are not applicable to this type of medical device submission. This document describes a surgical implant, not an AI/imaging device.

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

For a spinal implant system like the EXPEDIUM Spine System, "acceptance criteria" are not reported in terms of diagnostic performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, etc.). Instead, they relate to mechanical and material performance standards to ensure the device is safe and effective when implanted.

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

The document does not detail a "test set" in the context of clinical data, as it's not a clinical study designed to test diagnostic accuracy. The performance data relates to mechanical testing of the implant components. Therefore, information about sample size, country of origin, and retrospective/prospective nature of a clinical test set is not applicable to this submission.

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

This is not applicable. The ground truth for mechanical testing is established by engineering standards and measurement techniques, not by expert clinician consensus on clinical cases.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical studies where expert consensus is needed to establish a ground truth from ambiguous cases.

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

This is not applicable. The EXPEDIUM Spine System is a physical surgical implant, not an AI or imaging device that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

This is not applicable. The EXPEDIUM Spine System is a physical surgical implant, not an algorithm or software.

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

For this device, the "ground truth" for its performance is based on engineering standards and material science properties (e.g., strength, fatigue resistance, biocompatibility) as defined by standards like ASTM F 1537 (for material) and ASTM F 1717 (for mechanical testing of spine fusion constructs). There are no clinical outcomes data, pathology, or expert consensus used as ground truth for this type of submission's performance data.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. This is a physical implant, not an AI model, so there is no "training set."

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

This is not applicable.

Summary of what the document does provide:

• Device Type: Spinal implant system (rods, screws)
• Purpose of Submission: Special 510(k) for additions to an existing system, demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
• Key Performance Data: Mechanical performance data per ASTM F 1717, and material characterization per ASTM F 1537. This data ensures the device meets established engineering standards for strength, durability, and biocompatibility suitable for its intended use.
• Intended Use: Immobilization and stabilization of spinal segments as an adjunct to fusion for various spinal conditions (degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, trauma, stenosis, curvatures, tumor, pseudoarthrosis, failed previous fusion).
• Material: ASTM F 1537 implant grade cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy.

The document demonstrates that the new components for the EXPEDIUM Spine System are substantially equivalent to previously cleared devices based on their design, materials, and mechanical performance testing, not on clinical performance against diagnostic or AI-related metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EXPEDIUM™ Spine System is intended for noncervical pedicle fixation and nonpedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The subject EXPEDIUM Spine System components consist of designs that interface to 5.5mm and 6.35mm rods and are available in various geometries and sizes.

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) Submission for additions to the EXPEDIUM Spine System. It focuses on the regulatory approval process and device description rather than performance studies or acceptance criteria for a system that uses AI.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding:

• 1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
• 2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
• 4. Adjudication method for the test set
• 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
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
• 7. The type of ground truth used
• 8. The sample size for the training set
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

The document only mentions:

• Performance Data: "Performance data per ASTM F 1717 were submitted to characterize the subject EXPEDIUM™ Spine System components addressed in this notification." This indicates that mechanical performance testing, likely related to strength and fatigue, was conducted according to a specific ASTM standard (ASTM F 1717 for Spinal Implant Constructs in a Corpectomy Model). However, it does not provide the acceptance criteria or results of these tests, nor does it relate to any AI/algorithm performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EXPEDIUM™ Spine System is intended for noncervical pedicle fixation and nonpedicle fixation for the following indications: degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies); spondylolisthesis; trauma (i.e., fracture or dislocation); spinal stenosis; curvatures (i.e., scoliosis, kyphosis, and/or lordosis); tumor; pseudoarthrosis; and failed previous fusion in skeletally mature patients.

The subject EXPEDIUM™ Spine System rods are designed to work in conjunction with the components of the following DePuy Spine spine systems: EXPEDIUM™ 6.35mm Spine System (Ti + SS), EXPEDIUM™ 5.5mm Spine System (Ti + SS), ISOLA® 4.75mm Spine System (Ti + SS), ISOLA® 6.35mm Spine System (Ti + SS), MONARCH™ 5.5mm Spine System (Ti), MONARCH™ 6.35mm Spine System (Ti), MOSS MIAMI™ 5.0mm Spine System (SS), MOSS MIAMITM 5.5mm Spine System (Ti), MOSS MIAMI™ 6.35mm Spine System (SS), VIPERTM 5.5mm Spine System (Ti). Manufactured from ASTM F 138 implant grade stainless steel and ASTM F 136 implant grade titanium alloy.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the EXPEDIUM™ Spine System, a medical device for spinal fixation. It describes the device, its intended use, materials, and a declaration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices, noting performance data per ASTM F 1717.

However, the document does not contain the information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically for diagnostic or AI-assisted devices.

The product is a physical orthotic system, not a diagnostic device or an AI/software product that would typically have acceptance criteria related to performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or reader improvement. The "performance data" mentioned refers to mechanical testing (ASTM F 1717) for the physical components of the spinal system, not clinical or diagnostic performance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request for a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance using the provided text, as this information is not present. The questions about sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, type of ground truth, and training set information are all pertinent to the evaluation of AI or diagnostic devices, which this product is not.

Ask a specific question about this device