Search Results

The DC-8/DC-8 PRO/DC-8 CV/DC-8 EXP/DC-8S Diagnostic Ultrasound System is applicable for adults, pregnant women, pediatric patients and neonates. It is intended for use in fetal, abdominal, pediatric, small organ (breast, thyroid, testes), neonatal cephalic, adult cephalic, trans-rectal, trans-vaginal, musculo-skeletal (conventional, superficial), cardiac adult, cardiac pediatric, peripheral vessel and urology exams.

DC-8/DC-8 PRO/DC-8 CV/DC-8 EXP/DC-8S Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a general purpose, mobile, software controlled, ultrasound diagnostic system. Its function is to acquire and display ultrasound images in B-Mode, M-Mode, PW-Mode, CW mode, Color-Mode, Color M-Mode, Power/Dirpower Mode, TDI mode, 3D/4D mode, Elastography or the combined mode (i.e. B/M-Mode).This system is a Track 3 device that employs an array of probes that include linear array, convex array and phased array with a frequency range of approximately 3 MHz to 10.0 MHz.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the DC-8/DC-8 PRO/DC-8 CV/DC-8 EXP/DC-8S Diagnostic Ultrasound System. This type of submission is a statement to the FDA that the device is substantially equivalent to another legally marketed device, not a claim of superior performance or a detailed study of acceptance criteria against novel performance metrics.

Therefore, the provided text does not contain the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of specific performance metrics for diagnosis or improved human reader performance with AI assistance. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to general safety and performance standards.

Here's an analysis of the provided information relative to your requested points:

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

This information is not provided in the document. The 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and compliance with recognized safety and performance standards, rather than defining specific outcome-based acceptance criteria and reporting performance against them.

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 as there is no clinical performance study detailed in this 510(k) summary. The document states "DC-8/DC-8 PRO/DC-8 CV/DC-8 EXP/DC-8S Diagnostic Ultrasound System has been evaluated for acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning and disinfection effectiveness as well as thermal, electrical and mechanical safety." These are non-clinical hardware tests, not clinical performance studies involving a test set of patient data.

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 information is not applicable/not provided. As no clinical performance study is detailed, there's no mention of a test set, ground truth establishment, or experts for that purpose.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. No clinical performance study or test set requiring adjudication is described.

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

An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done, and there is no mention of AI assistance in this document. The device is a general-purpose diagnostic ultrasound system, not explicitly an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The purpose of this 510(k) is to establish substantial equivalence, not to demonstrate improved human reader performance.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. The device is a diagnostic ultrasound system, which inherently involves human operation and interpretation. There is no mention of a standalone algorithm or AI performance.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. Since no clinical performance study with a test set is detailed, there's no mention of the type of ground truth used.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/not provided. The device is an ultrasound system. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of an algorithm or AI.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. As there's no training set mentioned in the context of an algorithm or AI, there's no corresponding information on how ground truth would be established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

The DC-8/DC-8 PRO/DC-8 CV/DC-8 EXP/DC-8S Diagnostic Ultrasound System is applicable for adults, pregnant women, pediatric patients and neonates. It is intended for use in fetal, abdominal, pediatric, small organ (breast, thyroid, testes), neonatal cephalic, adult cephalic, trans-rectal, trans-vaginal, musculo-skeletal (conventional, superficial), cardiac adult, cardiac pediatric, peripheral vessel and urology exams.

DC-8/DC-8 PRO/DC-8 CV/DC-8 EXP/DC-8S Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a general purpose, mobile, software controlled, ultrasound diagnostic system. Its function is to acquire and display ultrasound images in B-Mode, M-Mode, PW-Mode, CW mode, Color-Mode, Color M-Mode, Power/Dirpower Mode, TDI mode, 4D mode or the combined mode (i.e. B/M-Mode).This system is a Track 3 device that employs an array of probes that include linear array, convex array and phased array with a frequency range of approximately 3 MHz to 10.0 MHz.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Shenzhen Mindray Bio-medical Electronics Co., LTD DC-8/DC-8 PRO/DC-8 CV/DC-8 EXP/DC-8S Diagnostic Ultrasound System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to medical safety standards rather than establishing new performance criteria through clinical studies.

Therefore, the document does NOT contain information regarding:

• Specific acceptance criteria framed as quantitative metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy).
• Details of a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in terms of clinical performance.
• Sample sizes used for test or training sets for an AI/algorithm.
• Data provenance, number or qualifications of experts, or adjudication methods for establishing ground truth related to clinical performance.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or effect sizes for human readers with/without AI assistance.
• Standalone algorithm performance studies.
• The type of ground truth used as it relates to clinical performance studies.
• The sample size for the training set or how ground truth was established for a training set.

The document primarily outlines the device's technical specifications, intended uses, and lists applicable safety and electrical standards it conforms to. It states that the device has been evaluated for "acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning and disinfection effectiveness as well as thermal, electrical and mechanical safety" and found to conform with applicable medical safety standards.

However, based on the provided text, I can infer the "acceptance criteria" and "study" in a regulatory context, which is demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and compliance with recognized standards.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted based on that understanding:

1. Table of "Acceptance Criteria" and "Reported Device Performance":

In the context of a 510(k) submission for a diagnostic ultrasound system like this, the "acceptance criteria" are not reported as specific performance metrics (like sensitivity/specificity) but as conformance to established safety and performance standards, and substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is the statement of conformity.

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

The document does not detail specific clinical studies with test sets, sample sizes, or data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) for proving diagnostic performance. The evaluations mentioned are primarily for safety, electrical, and mechanical conformity.

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

Not applicable, as no described clinical performance study with a test set requiring expert-established ground truth.

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

Not applicable.

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. The device described is a general diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI-powered diagnostic algorithm aiding human readers.

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

Not applicable. This is a diagnostic ultrasound system, not a standalone algorithm.

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

Not applicable in the context of clinical diagnostic performance. For technical evaluations, the "ground truth" would be the specifications and requirements defined by the applicable standards (e.g., standard measures for acoustic output, material properties for biocompatibility testing).

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable, as no described AI/algorithm training process.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device