Search Results

The Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash system is intended to produce cross-sectional images of the body by computer reconstruction of x-ray transmission data from either the same axial plane taken at different angles or spiral planes* taken at different angles.

In addition the SOMATOM Definition Flash is able to produce additional image planes and analysis results by executing optional post processing features, which operate on DICOM images.

The images and results delivered by the system can be used by a trained physician as an aid in diagnosis.

(*spiral planes: the axial planes resulting from the continuous rotation of detectors and x-ray tube, and the simultaneous translation of the patient.)

The Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash is a Computed Tomography X- ray System, which features two continuously rotating tube-detector systems and functions according to the fan beam principle. The SOMATOM Definition Flash produces CT images in DICOM format, which can be used by post-processing applications commercially distributed by Siemens and other vendors.

The system software is a command-based program used for patient management. data management, X-ray scan control, image reconstruction, and image archive/evaluation. The new version of system software, SOMARIS/7 VA44, allows the reconstruction of images with a slice thickness of 0.5mm for SOMATOM Definition Flash systems equipped with Stellar Detector.

The computer system delivered with the CT scanner is able to run the post processing applications optionally. The Stellar Detector will be offered as an optional upgrade to the cleared SOMATOM Definition Flash CT systems.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the SOMATOM Definition Flash CT System, focusing on modifications introduced with software version SOMARIS/7 VA44. The key modification is the ability to reconstruct 0.5mm slices for systems equipped with Stellar Detector and SAFIRE, providing a z-axis resolution of 0.3mm. The submission details non-clinical testing to support these modifications.

However, the provided text does not contain a table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance metrics in the way typically expected for a detailed study report. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical characteristic comparisons and non-clinical testing.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based on the available information, highlighting what is missing or not explicitly stated:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or a table of reported device performance values in the context of a clinical study or a formal validation report against specific performance targets (e.g., sensitivity, specificity for a diagnostic task).

Instead, the "acceptance criteria" appear to be implicit in the non-clinical testing performed, which aimed to confirm the technical capabilities of the new software feature (0.5mm slice reconstruction).

Implicit Acceptance Criteria and Reported Performance (from non-clinical testing):

Study Details

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

   • The document describes "phantom tests" to evaluate the 0.5mm slice width.
   • Test Set Sample Size: Not specified. Phantom studies typically involve multiple acquisitions or varying phantom configurations, but the number of "samples" or "cases" is not quantified.
   • Data Provenance: Phantom data (simulated/controlled environment). No human patient data is mentioned for this specific testing.

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

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. Phantom studies typically do not involve human experts establishing ground truth in the same way clinical studies do. The "ground truth" for phantom measurements is based on the known physical properties and geometry of the phantom and the expected output based on theoretical understanding or established measurement techniques.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable. As this was non-clinical phantom testing, no expert adjudication was involved. The measurements are objective physical assessments.

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. The document explicitly states "Nonclinical Testing" and describes phantom tests. There is no mention of an MRMC study or any assessment of human reader performance or AI assistance. This device is a CT scanner, and the modifications are about image reconstruction capabilities, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

   • Yes, to some extent. The non-clinical testing of the software focuses on the performance of the image reconstruction algorithm itself using phantom data (e.g., measuring MTF, spatial resolution). This can be considered a standalone assessment of the algorithm's capability to produce specific image characteristics.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • For the non-clinical phantom testing, the ground truth is derived from known physical properties and characteristics of the phantoms used (e.g., precisely manufactured structures for resolution assessment) and established measurement methodologies for CT performance.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. This submission does not describe an AI model that requires a training set. The software update is for image reconstruction logic and hardware capabilities, not a machine learning algorithm in the typical sense that would necessitate a trained model.

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

   • Not applicable. As no training set for an AI model is mentioned, there's no ground truth establishment for such a set.

Ask a specific question about this device