Search Results

Radlink GPS is intended for digital image capture use in general radiographic examinations, whenever conventional screen-film systems may be used. Radlink GPS allows imaging of the pelvis, knee, skull, chest, shoulder, spine, abdomen and extremities. The digital images are transmitted from the panel or from a connection to PACS via computer networks or from a video input port to a personal computer (PC) where they may be displayed, processed, altered, overlaid with templates, compressed for archiving or transmission via computer networks to other medical facility sites. Not for mammography.

The Radlink GPS system represents the straightforward integration of digital x-ray receptor panels with their own FDA 510(k) clearance and our acquisition software that has been previously cleared by the FDA for use with our Radlink CR-Pro Solid State X-ray Imager (K052938) and Radlink LaserPro-16 (K020243). The Radlink GPS is compatible with the following digital x-ray receptor panels:

• . Vieworks VIVIX-S (K120020) and VIVIX-S Wireless (K122865)
• . Trixell Artpix Mobile EZ2GO with portable PIXIUM 3543EZ (K110849)
• -Perkin Elmer XRpad 4336 MED (K140551)
  Radlink GPS is a Digital Radiography (DR) system, featuring an integrated flat panel digital detector (FPD). Radlink GPS is designed to perform digital radiographic examinations as a replacement for conventional film. This integrated platform provides the benefits of PACS with the advantages of digital radiography for a filmless environment and improves cost effectiveness. The major functions and principle of operations of the Radlink CR Pro acquisition software and PACS were not changed. The digital copies are transmitted to an internal personal computer (PC) where they may be displayed, processed for archiving or transmission via computer networks to other medical facility sites. Images can be rotated, flipped, coomed, window level, overlaid and annotated (markers, text, freestyle, line distance measurements, angles). Digital images may be received via the flat panel digital detector (FPD), from a connection to PACS via computer networks or from a video input port.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Radlink GPS device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal acceptance criteria with numerical targets for performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, image quality scores). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" appear to be implicit in demonstrating that the device is "as safe and effective as products currently legally for sale in the USA" and "substantially equivalent to predicate devices."

The reported device performance primarily focuses on functionality, safety, and diagnostic quality rather than specific quantitative performance metrics.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document states that "Human images were obtained from each of the panels." It does not specify the exact number of human images or cases used for this review.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Given the context of seeking FDA clearance in the USA, it's likely the images were acquired in a medical setting, possibly in the USA, but no specific country or retrospective/prospective nature is mentioned.

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

• Number of Experts: "a Board Certified Radiologist." (Singular)
• Qualifications of Experts: "Board Certified Radiologist." No specific number of years of experience is provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: "reviewed by a Board Certified Radiologist." There is no mention of multiple readers or an adjudication process (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). The assessment appears to be a single-reader evaluation.

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

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence primarily through functional comparison, technical performance verification, and a limited clinical review by a single radiologist. There is no mention of comparing human readers with and without AI assistance. The device itself is an image acquisition and processing system, not an AI diagnostic aid.

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

• Standalone Performance: The Radlink GPS is a digital radiography system, not an AI algorithm in the context typically discussed for standalone performance (e.g., detecting disease). Its "performance" is inherently linked to image acquisition and display. The "algorithm" here refers to the acquisition and processing software, and its standalone performance is tested through aspects like "conformance to its defined specifications" using phantoms, software validation, and DICOM compatibility. While not referred to as "standalone AI performance," the non-clinical testing and software validation serve a similar function for the core components of the system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth for the diagnostic quality assessment was based on expert consensus (from a single Board Certified Radiologist) who evaluated the human images and found them to be of "good diagnostic quality." For other aspects like image acquisition and technical specifications, the ground truth was based on physical measurements (e.g., gray-scale wedge, line resolution phantom) against predefined technical standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of this submission. The Radlink GPS is described as an integration of existing cleared components (digital panels and acquisition software that was previously cleared). It is not an AI/machine learning model that undergoes a distinct "training phase" on a dataset in the way a diagnostic algorithm would. The software was previously cleared (K052938, K020243), implying its development and validation occurred prior to this submission.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable. As mentioned above, this is an integration of pre-cleared components, not a new AI algorithm requiring a dedicated training set and associated ground truth establishment for that training. The development and validation of the constituent software and hardware components would have involved their own respective "ground truths" at the time of their original clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device

ViZion Ultra is intended for digital image capture use in general radiographic examinations, wherever conventional screen-film systems may be used, excluding fluoroscopy, angiography and mammography. ViZion Ultra allows imaging of the skull, chest, shoulders, spine, abdomen, pelvis, and extremities.

The ViZion Ultra system represents the straightforward integration of a new digital x-ray receptor panel (K110849) and our previously cleared software. This is a MODIFICATION of our clearances K112661 and K123644 wherein we have changed the supplier of the panel. Therefore a special 510(k) has been submitted. The ViZion Ultra is compatible with Sedecal SHF generators. Some manufacturers rebrand the Sedecal SHF generators, and these generators are compatible as well.

ViZion Ultra is a Digital Radiography system, featuring an integrated flat panel digital detector (FPD) ViZion Ultra is designed to perform digital radiographic examinations as a replacement for conventional film. This integrated platform provides the benefits of PACS with the advartages of digital radiography for a filmless environment and improves cost effectiveness. The major funciple of operation of the Viztek PACS and the new receptor panel were not changed. Our main predicate is ViZion + DR, K123644, wherein we combined our OPAL-RAD software with two new digital panels.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Key Takeaway: This 510(k) submission is for a modification to an existing digital X-ray system, specifically changing the supplier of the digital receptor panel. Therefore, the "study" primarily focuses on demonstrating that the new panel performs as well as or better than the previously cleared predicate device, rather than establishing de novo efficacy. The acceptance criteria are implicitly met by achieving substantial equivalence to the predicate.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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 evaluation. It only states that "Clinical images were acquired."
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of a 510(k) for a minor modification (panel change), it's likely these were prospectively acquired images for comparison purposes, but this is not definitively stated.

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

• Number of Experts: "a board certified radiologist" (singular, implies one).
• Qualifications of Experts: "board certified radiologist." Specific years of experience are not mentioned.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document states that "a board certified radiologist... concluded the images from the new panel are as good as the images acquired with the predicate panel." This indicates a single-reader assessment rather than a multi-reader adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1). There was no additional adjudication process described.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The evaluation described involves a single radiologist comparing images from the new panel to those from the predicate panel. The focus was on demonstrating non-inferiority (equal or better image quality) rather than quantifying an improvement in human reader performance with AI assistance. This device is a digital X-ray receptor, not an AI-powered diagnostic aid.

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

• This question is not applicable in the context of this device. The ViZion Ultra is a digital X-ray receptor panel and associated software for image acquisition. It is not an algorithm designed for interpretation or diagnosis that would typically undergo a standalone performance study in the way AI algorithms are evaluated. Its "performance" is inherently tied to the image it produces for a human reader. The technical parameters like MTF and DQE (mentioned as being supplied by the manufacturer) represent objective standalone measures of the detector's physical performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth for the clinical images was implicitly established by expert consensus/opinion (from the single board-certified radiologist) that the images produced by the new panel were "as good as" those from the predicate panel. There is no mention of pathology, outcomes data, or other objective measures of disease presence as ground truth, as the study's purpose was image quality comparison for substantial equivalence, not diagnostic accuracy.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable / Not provided. The device described is a hardware component (digital X-ray detector) and associated software for image acquisition and viewing. It is not an AI/Machine Learning algorithm that typically requires a distinct "training set" in the conventional sense for its function. The software is noted as "SAME as K112661," implying that its functionality is established.

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

• Not applicable. As stated above, this is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set with established ground truth for learning.

Ask a specific question about this device