Search Results

The EVIS EXERA III DUODENOVIDEOSCOPE OLYMPUS TJF-Q190V has been designed to be used with a video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, endo therapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the duodenum.

The EVIS EXERA III DUODENOSCOPE TJF-Q190V has been designed to be used with an video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the duodenum. The TJF-Q190V is compatible with Olympus system "Video System Center OLYMPUS CV-190 and XENON LIGHT SOURCE OLYMPUS CLV-190 (K112680)." TJF-Q190V is also compatible with Olympus system "EVIS X1 Video System Center OLYMPUS CV-1500 (K222584)."

The subject device consists of a flexible insertion section, control section and endoscope connector section with equipped charge-coupled device (CCD) chip which delivers images.

The light from the light source travels through the light guide to the light guide lens at the distal end. The light source can offer both white light for normal observation and narrow band imaging (NBI). The CCD chip transduces the incident light from the objective lens to electrical signal. The video processor transduces the electrical signal to video signal.

There is an instrument channel located inside of the flexible insertion section. EndoTherapy accessories can be inserted through the instrument channel. A forceps elevator is located at the distal end of the insertion section to elevate endo therapy accessories for endoscopic treatment.

A sterile, single-use distal cover (MAJ-2315) has been designed to be attached to the OLYMPUS TJF-Q190V to cover the distal end of the insertion tube and fit around the forceps elevator. MAJ-2315 is to be discarded after clinical use. MAJ-2315 and TJF-Q190V were previously cleared under 510(k)s K193182, K202661 and K220587.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter for the Olympus TJF-Q190V Duodenoscope indicates that the clearance is based on adhesive modifications to the device. This implies that the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria would primarily relate to the durability and safety of the new adhesive material and its impact on the overall performance of the endoscope, particularly concerning reprocessing and material integrity.

However, the provided text does not contain the detailed information typically found in a clinical study report or a summary of non-clinical performance data that would explicitly list acceptance criteria and device performance in the format requested. The document states:

• "Verification/validation activities were performed subsequent to a risk assessment evaluation of the device modifications per the Olympus Quality Management System."
• "Results of the following testing demonstrate that the changes to the device do not adversely affect device performance: Performance Testing - Bench, Sterilization and Shelf-Life - Residual Toxicity of Reprocessing Chemicals, Biocompatibility Evaluation."
• "No clinical data were collected."

This means the clearance was based on non-clinical (bench) testing. Therefore, I cannot provide information on clinical performance metrics, multi-reader multi-case studies, or the establishment of ground truth by human experts, as these were not part of the submission for this particular change.

Given the limited information, I will infer the implied acceptance criteria based on the described non-clinical tests.

Implied Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Based on the provided information, the acceptance criteria would be related to the non-clinical performance of the device with the new adhesive, ensuring it is equivalent or superior to the predicate device, especially concerning durability against reprocessing and biocompatibility.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Inferred)

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study involved non-clinical, bench-level verification and validation activities.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. For bench testing, this would typically involve a defined number of devices or components subjected to various tests (e.g., durability cycles, chemical exposure). The exact number of units or test replicates is not provided in the summary.
• Data Provenance: The manufacturing site is Aizu Olympus Co., Ltd., Japan. The testing would have been conducted in a controlled lab environment. This was a retrospective evaluation of a design modification, and the data would be laboratory-generated.

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

• This question is not applicable as "No clinical data were collected." The "ground truth" for non-clinical bench testing would be defined by engineering specifications, material standards, and validated test methods, rather than expert human interpretation of medical images or patient outcomes.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable. As no clinical data or human evaluations were involved for this specific submission.

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

• No, a MRMC study was not done. The document explicitly states, "No clinical data were collected." Therefore, there is no information on how human readers might improve with or without AI assistance, as AI is not mentioned and no human reading study was conducted.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

• Not applicable. This device is a duodenoscope, a physical medical instrument, not an AI algorithm. There is no mention of a software algorithm or standalone performance in the context of AI.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" would be based on:
  • Engineering Specifications: Device design parameters, material specifications.
  • Regulatory Standards: ISO standards for biocompatibility (e.g., ISO 10993), sterilization, and other relevant performance standards for endoscopes.
  • Validated Test Methods: Established laboratory protocols for evaluating material durability, chemical resistance, and device functionality.
  • Predicate Device Performance Baseline: The performance characteristics of the legally marketed predicate device (K202661) served as a benchmark for substantial equivalence.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This submission focuses on a hardware modification (adhesive) to an existing device, not the development or training of a software algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. As there was no training set for a software algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

This instrument has been designed to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTberapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the duodenum.

The EVIS EXERA III DUODENOSCOPE TJF-Q190V has been designed to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the duodenum. The TJF-Q190V is compatible with Olympus system "Video System Center OLYMPUS CV-190 and XENON LIGHT SOURCE OLYMPUS CLV-190 (K112680)."

The subject device consists of a flexible insertion section, control section and endoscope connector section with equipped charge-coupled device (CCD) chip which delivers images.

The light from the light source travels through the light guide to the light guide lens at the distal end. The light source can offer both white light for normal observation and narrow band imaging (NBI). The CCD chip transduces the incident light from the objective lens to electrical signal. The video processor transduces the electrical signal to video signal.

There is an instrument channel located inside of the flexible insertion section. EndoTherapy accessories can be inserted through the instrument channel. A forceps elevator is located at the distal end of the insertion to elevate EndoTherapy accessories for endoscopic treatment.

A sterile, single-use Distal Cover (MAJ-2315) has been designed to be attached to the OLYMPUS TJF-Q190V to cover the distal end of the insertion tube and fit around the forceps elevator. MAJ-2315 is to be discarded after clinical use. MAJ-2315 and TJF-Q190V were previously cleared under 510(k)s K193182 and K202661.

This document K220587 is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from Olympus Medical Systems Corp. regarding the EVIS EXERA III Duodenovideoscope Olympus TJF-Q190V.

Based on the provided document, there is no information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria in the context of device performance metrics often associated with AI/ML devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). This document primarily addresses the substantial equivalence of device modifications to an existing predicate device, focusing on bench testing, sterilization, biocompatibility, and human factors.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were collected."

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as it does not exist within this document for this specific device clearance.

Here's a breakdown of why each requested point cannot be answered from the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not available. The document discusses "performance testing bench," "sterilization validation," "shelf-life testing," "biocompatibility evaluation," and "human factors evaluation" as verification activities, but it does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or reported performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, etc.) for the duodenoscope's diagnostic or therapeutic function.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in the context of a clinical performance study. The tests mentioned are engineering and safety validations.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as no clinical study with "ground truth" (e.g., disease presence) was performed.
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. This document pertains to a medical imaging device (endoscope), not an AI/ML-assisted device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable, as no clinical study was performed.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as no AI/ML component is discussed.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Summary from the document:

The 510(k) submission for the Olympus TJF-Q190V Duodenovideoscope focuses on design modifications to a sterile, single-use Distal Cover (MAJ-2315) used with the duodenoscope and labeling updates. The core duodenoscope device itself (TJF-Q190V) and the distal cover were previously cleared under K193182 and K202661. This submission aims to demonstrate that these specific modifications do not adversely affect device performance and that the device remains substantially equivalent to its predicate.

The non-clinical performance data summarized includes:

• Performance Testing Bench
• Sterilization Validation and Shelf-Life Testing
• Biocompatibility Evaluation
• Human Factors Evaluation

The conclusion is that the modified Distal Cover MAJ-2315 raises no new issues of safety and effectiveness and the device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device

This instrument has been designed to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the duodenum.

The TJF-Q190V has been designed to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the duodenum. The TJF-0190V is compatible with Olympus system "Video System Center OLYMPUS CV-190 and XENON LIGHT SOURCE OLYMPUS CLV-190 (K112680)".

The subject device consists of flexible insertion section, control section and endoscope connector section with equipped CCD chip which delivers images.

The light from the light source travels through the light guide to the light guide lens at the distal end. The light source can offer both the white light for the normal observation and the narrow band imaging (NBI). The CCD chip transduces the incident light from the objective lens to electrical signal. The video processor transduces electrical signal to video signal.

There is an instrument channel entirely inside of the flexible insertion section. Endo Therapy accessories can be inserted through the instrument channel. A forceps elevator is located at the distal end of the insertion to elevate EndoTherapy accessories for endoscopic treatment.

The TJF-Q190V consists of a single-use distal cover, MAJ-2315 which has been designed to be attached to OLYMPUS TJF-O190V to cover the distal end of the insertion tube and around the forceps elevator. MAJ-2315 is to be discarded after clinical use. MAJ-2315 and TJF-Q190V were previously 510(k) cleared via premarket notification, K193182.

The following new reprocessing accessory has also been designed for use with TJF-O190V:

CONNECTING TUBE MAJ-2358

The MAJ-2358 has been designed to be used when reprocessing TJF-Q190V using the Olympus endoscope reprocessor.

The MAJ-2358 is a connecting tube to connect Olympus endoscope reprocessor and TJF-O190V. The endoscope side connector is attached to the distal end of the endoscope to directly deliver fluid to the elevator area.

This document (K202661) is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Evis Exera III Duodenovideoscope Olympus TJF-Q190V, and its associated reprocessing accessory, the Connecting Tube MAJ-2358. The core of the submission is to demonstrate that the redesigned duodenoscope and new reprocessing accessory are substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate device.

The provided text does not contain information about a study that proves the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria in terms of clinical performance (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or human expert performance improvement with AI). Instead, the performance data provided focuses on:

• Reprocessing validation testing: Ensuring the device can be properly reprocessed for safe reuse.
• Bench testing: Verifying the device and its accessories meet design specifications and perform as intended.
• Risk analysis: Assessing potential risks associated with the new connecting tube.

Therefore, many of the requested details, particularly those related to AI/human reader performance studies, ground truth establishment for clinical data, and effect sizes of AI assistance, are not applicable to this document as it describes a conventional medical device rather than an AI-powered one.

However, based on the provided text, I can extract information related to the device's technical acceptance criteria and the type of studies performed for regulatory clearance.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on provided text)

Since this is not an AI/diagnostic device, the acceptance criteria are related to cleaning, functionality, and safety.

Study Details (Applicable to this type of device and submission)

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

   • The document does not specify sample sizes for the reprocessing validation, bench testing, risk analysis, or human factors studies. These would typically be detailed in the full test reports referenced by the submission, not in the summary document.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated for specific tests, but the manufacturing site is Aizu Olympus Co., Ltd., Japan, implying tests likely occurred within Olympus's development and testing infrastructure, which could be global. The submission is to the U.S. FDA. The design and validation studies generally reflect prospective testing of the device against its specifications and reprocessing protocols.

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

   • Not applicable in the context of clinical expert review for diagnostic accuracy. For reprocessing validation, experts would be microbiologists or reprocessing specialists. For human factors, they would be end-users (e.g., nurses, technicians, physicians) representative of the target user population. The specific number and qualifications are not disclosed in this summary but would be part of the underlying test reports.

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

   • Not applicable for clinical diagnostic adjudication. For technical validation (reprocessing, bench tests), "adjudication" wouldn't be in the sense of resolving differing clinical interpretations. Pass/fail criteria are established based on engineering specifications, regulatory standards (e.g., AAMI TIR30 for reprocessing), and risk analysis results. Human factors studies would assess usability and potential for error, which might involve qualitative and quantitative data but not a clinical adjudication model.

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 device is a duodenoscope, an imaging and interventional tool. It is not an AI-powered diagnostic device, nor does it claim to assist human readers in image interpretation or diagnostic performance in the way an AI algorithm would.

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

   • No. This is a hardware device.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Not a clinical ground truth (e.g., pathology, outcomes data). The "ground truth" for these tests would be:
     • Reprocessing: Sterility, absence of bioburden, and functional integrity after multiple reprocessing cycles, confirmed by laboratory methods.
     • Bench Testing: Engineering specifications (e.g., dimensional accuracy, image quality parameters, durability, fluid flow rates in channels), confirmed by measurements and functional checks.
     • Risk Analysis/Human Factors: Identification of potential hazards and user errors, and confirmation that controls mitigate risks to an acceptable level.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that uses a "training set."

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

   • Not applicable. (See point 7)

In summary: The provided document is a regulatory clearance for a medical device (a duodenoscope) and a reprocessing accessory. The acceptance criteria and supporting studies are focused on the device's physical and functional performance, reprocessing efficacy, safety, and human factors, rather than clinical diagnostic performance enhancements or AI assistance.

Ask a specific question about this device

This instrument has been designed to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the duodenum.

The TJF-Q190V has been designed to be used with an Olympus video system center, light source, documentation equipment, monitor, EndoTherapy accessories (such as a biopsy forceps), and other ancillary equipment for endoscopy and endoscopic surgery within the duodenum. The TJF-Q190V is compatible with Olympus system "Video System Center OLYMPUS CV-190 and XENON LIGHT SOURCE OLYMPUS CLV-190 (K112680)".

The subject device consists of flexible insertion section, control section and endoscope connector section with equipped CCD chip which delivers images.

The light from the light source travels through the light guide to the light guide lens at the distal end. The light source can offer both the white light for the normal observation and the narrow band imaging (NBI). The CCD chip transduces the incident light from the objective lens to electrical signal. The video processor transduces electrical signal to video signal.

There is an instrument channel entirely inside of the flexible insertion section. Endo Therapy accessories can be inserted through the instrument channel. A forceps elevator is located at the distal end of the insertion to elevate EndoTherapy accessories for endoscopic treatment.

The TJF-Q190V consists of a single-use distal cover, MAJ-2315 which has been designed to be attached to OLYMPUS TJF-O190V to cover the distal end of the insertion tube and around the forceps elevator. MAJ-2315 is to be discarded after clinical use.

The following new reprocessing accessory has also been designed for use with TJF-Q190V:

DISTAL END FLUSHING ADAPTER MAJ-2319

The MAJ-2319 was designed to flush the distal end of the endoscope with reprocessing fluids.

The MAJ-2319 can be attached to the distal end of the endoscope during the manual cleaning and disinfection process to flush the distal end with reprocessing fluids. The reprocessing fluid is flushed through the MAJ-2319 to the distal end using a syringe.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Evis Exera III Duodenovideoscope Olympus TJF-Q190V." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study for an AI algorithm.

Therefore, the information requested in points 1-9 is largely not applicable or directly available in the provided text, as this is a submission for a traditional medical device (an endoscope), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

Here's why and what can be extracted:

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

• Not Applicable in the traditional sense for an AI study. The document lists various performance data categories (sterilization, reprocessing, biocompatibility, software V&V, electrical safety, bench testing, risk analysis), but these are for the mechanical and electrical functionality of the endoscope itself, and its accessories, not for an AI's accuracy metrics. There are no specific "acceptance criteria" for metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc., for an AI algorithm, because this device does not contain one.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no "test set" for an AI algorithm. The performance testing refers to physical tests on the endoscope and its accessories.

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. No ground truth establishment for an AI algorithm is mentioned.

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

• Not Applicable. No test set or adjudication for an AI algorithm is mentioned.

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 a hardware device (endoscope), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. No human reader studies are mentioned.

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

• Not Applicable. No AI algorithm is integrated into this device.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no AI algorithm that requires ground truth in this submission. The "ground truth" for the device's functionality would be adherence to engineering specifications and regulatory standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. No AI training set is mentioned.

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

• Not Applicable. No AI training set or ground truth establishment process is mentioned.

Summary of Relevant Performance Data from the Document (as it pertains to a non-AI device):

The document details various performance data provided in support of the substantial equivalence determination for the Olympus TJF-Q190V Duodenovideoscope. These studies demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the traditional medical device and its accessories, not an AI component.

Here's a breakdown of the performance data categories:

• 1) Sterilization/Shelf life testing:

  • Description: Conducted for the MAJ-2315 (Single Use Distal Cover) in accordance with FDA guidance "Submission and Review of Sterility Information in Premarket Notification (510k) Submissions for Devices Labeled as Sterile." Accelerated aging was performed per ASTM F1980-16, with real-time aging for three years planned.

• 2) Reprocessing validation testing:

  • Description: Reprocessing instructions and method validation for the TJF-Q190V were conducted and documented as recommended by FDA guidance "Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Setting: Validation Methods and Labeling." This includes the MAJ-2319 (Distal End Flushing Adapter).

• 3) Biocompatibility testing:

  • Description: Performed for the TJF-Q190V and MAJ-2315 according to FDA guidance and ISO 10993-1. Specific tests included:
    • Cytotoxicity Study Using the Colony Assay
    • Intracutaneous Study in Rabbits
    • Guinea Pig Maximization Sensitization Test

• 4) Software verification and validation testing:

  • Description: Conducted for the TJF-Q190V software, following FDA guidance "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices" and "Content of Premarket Submissions for Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices."

• 5) Electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC):

  • Description: Tested on the TJF-Q190V. The system complies with:
    • AAMI ANSI ES60601-1: 2005/(R)2012 and A1:2012
    • IEC 60601-2-18: Edition 3.0 2009-08 (for safety)
    • IEC 60601-1-2: Edition 4: 2014-02 (for EMC)

• 6) Performance testing - Bench:

  • Description: Conducted for the TJF-Q190V and its accessories to ensure it performs as intended and meets design specifications. This included:
    • Thermal Safety test
    • Mechanical durability test
    • Performance testing for MAJ-2315
    • Photobiological safety test
    • Accidental Physical Impact testing on distal tip

• 7) Performance testing - Animal:

  • Description: No animal study was performed.

• 8) Performance testing - Clinical:

  • Description: No clinical study was performed.

• 9) Risk analysis:

  • Description: Conducted according to ISO 14971:2007 and human factors validation per FDA Guidance "Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Medical Devices." This risk analysis helped identify and perform design verification tests and their acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

FUJIFILM Endoscope Models EG-760R, EG-760Z, EC-760R-V/L, and EC-760ZP-V/L have following indications for use.

FUJIFILM Endoscope Models EG-760R and EG-760Z are intended for the visualization of the upper digestive tract, specifically for the observation, diagnosis, and endoscopic treatment of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum.

FUJIFILM Endoscope Models EC-760R-V/L and EC-760ZP-V/L are intended for the visualization of the lower digestive tract, specifically for the observation, diagnosis, and endoscopic treatment of the rectum and large intestine.

FUJIFILM Water Tank Model WT-603 has following indications for use.

This product is intended for use in combination with FUJIFILM 700 system scopes to deliver air and water through the endoscope under the management of a physician in medical facilities. Do not use this product for any other purpose.

FUJIFILM Endoscope Models EG-760R, EG-760Z, EC-760R-V/L and EC-760ZP-V/L are comprised of three general sections: a control portion, an insertion and an umbilicus. The control portion controls the angulation of the endoscopes. This portion also controls the flexibility of the distal end in the endoscopes. The insertion contains glass fiber bundles, several channels and a complementary metal-oxide- semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor in its distal end. The channels in the insertion portion assist in delivering air/suction as well as endoscope accessories, such as forceps. The glass fiber bundles allow light to travel through the endoscope and emit light from the tip of the insertion portion to illuminate the body cavity. This provides enough light to the CMOS image sensor to capture an image and display it on the monitor. The umbilicus consists of electronic components needed to operate the endoscope when plugged in to the video processor and the light source.

FUJIFILM Water Tank Model WT-603 consists of a container which holds the sterile water and a tank cover which provides delivery of water through the channel tube to the distal end of an Endoscope.

The subject devices are used in combination with FUJIFILM's video processors, light sources and peripheral devices such as monitor, printer, foot switch, and cart. All of these combinations were previously cleared in K132210, K162622 and K163675.

This document describes the regulatory submission for several models of FUJIFILM Endoscopes (EG-760R, EG-760Z, EC-760R-V/L, EC-760ZP-V/L) and the FUJIFILM Water Tank Model WT-603. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, primarily the Fujifilm 600 Series Endoscope Model EG-600WR and Water Tank Model WT-4 (K132210), and the Fujifilm Video Colonoscope Model EC-600WL v2 (K160196).

Based on the provided text, the acceptance criteria and study details are primarily focused on bench performance testing and compliance with established consensus standards, rather than clinical studies with human readers or specific statistical performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, AUC) against a ground truth.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document lists various tests performed and states that the devices met pre-determined acceptance criteria and performance specifications. However, the document does not explicitly state the numerical acceptance criteria or specific quantitative performance values for each test. It broadly states that the devices met "pre-determined acceptance criteria" and demonstrated "substantially equivalent performance" to predicate devices.

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

The document describes bench performance testing of physical devices/components, not a test set of data (e.g., images for an AI algorithm).

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The testing would have involved a number of manufactured devices/components rather than a "test set" in the context of data.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of data provenance for an AI algorithm. The tests were performed on the physical devices themselves.

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

This information is not applicable as the submission describes testing of endoscope hardware and reprocessing procedures, not an AI or diagnostic device that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This information is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

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:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission pertains to the hardware and reprocessing of endoscopes, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This submission is for endoscope hardware and related accessories, not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the performance testing described, the "ground truth" would be established by the compliance with the specified international and national consensus standards (e.g., ISO, IEC, AAMI) and the device's own pre-determined engineering specifications. This is distinct from pathology, expert consensus on images, or outcomes data. The tests are designed to objectively measure physical characteristics and safety in comparison to these standards and the predicate device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

This information is not applicable as this submission is for endoscope hardware, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

This information is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PENTAX Medical EPK-i7010 Video Processor is intended to be used with the PENTAX camera heads, endoscopes, light sources, monitors and other ancillary equipment for gastrointestinal endoscopic diagnosis, treatment and video observation.

The PENTAX Medical EPK -7010 includes a digital post-processing imaging enhancement technology (PENTAX i-Scan™) and an optical imaging enhancement technology (OE).These imaging enhancement technologies are intended to be used as an optional adjunct following traditional white light endoscopy and is not intended to replace histopathological sampling. i-Scan and OE are compatible with PENTAX video gastrointestinal endoscopes.

The PENTAX Medical EPK-i7010 video processor consists of a video system, integrated light source, monitor, and ancillary equipment. This processor is intended for endoscopic diagnostic, treatment and video observation.

The PENTAX Medical EPK-i7010 video processor contains two types of contrast enhancement techniques: PENTAX i-Scan technology, and optical enhancement (OE) technology.

White light is captured from a 300 Watt xenon lamp housed in the PENTAX Medical EPKi7010 video processor. All visualization is done with the white light mode first. White light (BGR) illuminates the tissue and transfers the captured light through the video scope or a charged coupled device (CCD). Note that the white light visualization mode is always used first by the physician.

For i-Scan image enhancement, the modification of the combination of RGB components for each pixel occurs when the i-Scan function is turned on in the PENTAX Medical EPKi7010 video processor. The resulting i-Scan image is then displayed on the observation monitor. For OE image enhancement, one of the two optical filters corresponding to Mode1 and Mode2 are inserted into illumination light path when the OE function is turned on in the PENTAX Medical EPK-i7010 video processor. The resulting OE image is then displayed on the observation monitor.

The provided document describes the Pentax Medical EPK-i7010 Video Processor with GI Family, which includes digital (PENTAX i-Scan™) and optical (OE) imaging enhancement technologies for use as an adjunct to traditional white light endoscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopic diagnosis, treatment, and video observation.

However, the document does not provide specific acceptance criteria or an explicit study proving the device meets those criteria in the typical sense of a diagnostic performance study with sensitivity, specificity, or similar metrics. Instead, the performance data focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device (PENTAX Medical EPK-i5010 Video Processor) and a reference device (OLYMPUS EVIS EXERA III Video System) through compliance with standards and non-clinical testing.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based on the available information:

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

The document does not present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity for its imaging enhancement technologies. Instead, the performance is demonstrated through compliance with electrical safety, EMC, software standards, and non-clinical (optical bench and animal) testing to show comparability with predicate devices.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document refers to "a library of images" from porcine gastrointestinal mucosa for the animal study and "images from the porcine gastrointestinal location" for the bench testing. No specific numerical sample size (e.g., number of images, number of animals) is provided.
• Data Provenance: The animal study used porcine (pig) gastrointestinal mucosa. The country of origin for the data is not specified. The nature of the image acquisition for the animal and bench studies would be prospective as these were generated specifically for the testing.

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)

The document mentions "image evaluation" for the animal study but does not specify the number of experts, their qualifications, or how they established ground truth for the test set. Given the context of a 510(k) summary focused on substantial equivalence and non-clinical data, it's likely that a formal expert review for diagnostic accuracy wasn't the primary endpoint.

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

The document does not describe any adjudication method for establishing ground truth for a test set, as the performance evaluation in this 510(k) application focuses on technical and comparative performance, not a human reader diagnostic accuracy study.

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

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study assessing human reader improvement with or without AI (or in this case, imaging enhancement technologies) was not explicitly mentioned or described in the provided text. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through technical performance and animal/bench testing, not direct clinical or reader performance improvement studies.

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

The document describes the device as including "digital post-processing imaging enhancement technology (PENTAX i-Scan™) and an optical imaging enhancement technology (OE)." These technologies process images to enhance visualization. The "performance data" section focuses on "Optical Performance Testing (Bench and Animal non-clinical testing)" and states "The optical data analysis demonstrate that the PENTAX Medical EPK-i7010 Video Processor performs comparably to the predicate device." This implies an assessment of the algorithm's output (images) in a standalone fashion, determining features like resolution, artifact analysis, and enhancement capabilities without direct human diagnostic decision-making as the primary endpoint for the 510(k). The "image evaluation and quantitative data analysis" of porcine images would fall under this.

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

For the animal study, the ground truth explicitly stated or implied is for "image evaluation and quantitative data analysis" comparing white light, PENTAX OE, and Olympus NBI images from "porcine gastrointestinal mucosa." This likely refers to inherent characteristics of the mucosa as visualized under different modalities or technical imaging quality parameters, rather than a diagnostic 'ground truth' in the clinical sense (e.g., presence/absence of disease confirmed by pathology). The focus is on the imaging enhancement capability, not the diagnostic accuracy of the enhancement itself.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not provide any information about a training set size. The device uses "digital post-processing imaging enhancement technology" and "optical imaging enhancement technology." These might be based on pre-defined algorithms rather than machine learning models that require explicit training sets in the sense of supervised learning.

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

Since no training set is mentioned in the context of machine learning, there is no information on how its ground truth might have been established. The technologies are described as "imaging enhancement," likely relying on fixed algorithms or optical filtering techniques rather than a trained AI model in the typical sense that would necessitate a labeled training set for diagnostic classification.

Ask a specific question about this device