Search Results

The TxRx Knee 15 Flare MR Coil 1.5T is intended for use with Siemens 1.5T MR systems to produce diagnostic images of the knee that can be interpreted by a trained physician.

The TxRx Knee 15 Flare MR Coil 1.5T is a transmit/receive, 15-channel phased array coil designed for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the Siemens 1.5T MR systems. The TxRx Knee 15 Flare MR Coil 1.5T is intended to be used for imaging the knee. The TxRx Knee 15 Flare MR Coil 1.5T is a reusable, non-invasive device with limited exposure with regard to duration of contact with the body. All coil elements are enclosed in a rigid plastic housing which is fire-rated, has impact and tensile strength, and has been tested for biocompatibility.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "TxRx Knee 15 Flare MR Coil 1.5T." This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than defining specific performance-based acceptance criteria for a new AI/software device or a comparative effectiveness study.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, specific performance metrics, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, and detailed study methodologies is not present in the provided text.

Based on the available information, here's what can be extracted:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are generally qualitative and geared towards demonstrating safety, compliance with standards, and diagnostic image quality. Specific quantitative performance metrics typical of AI/software device evaluations (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) are not mentioned.

Missing Information/Not Applicable:

Since this document describes an MR coil (hardware) rather than an AI/software diagnostic device, most of the requested fields are not directly applicable or are not detailed in the provided text.

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

   • Test Set Size: Not specified. The document states "clinical images from volunteer scanning of the knee were obtained."
   • Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). It was "volunteer scanning," implying prospective data collection for the purpose of the submission.

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

   • Not specified. The "Indications for Use" state images "can be interpreted by a trained physician," implying general medical professional interpretation, but no specific number or qualification for ground truth establishment for a test set is provided.

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

   • Not specified. The concept of an adjudication method for ground truth is not relevant for this type of hardware performance testing.

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. This is not an AI-assisted device. The study is a comparison of the new coil to a predicate coil, not an AI efficacy study.

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

   • Not applicable, as this is hardware (MR coil).

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

   • For diagnostic image quality, the ground truth is implicitly defined by "diagnostic quality images" interpretable by a "trained physician." This is a qualitative assessment against expected clinical standards for image clarity and diagnostic utility, not a formal ground truth like pathology for a specific condition.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a hardware device; there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

   • Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device