Search Results

The ultrasound imaging systems are intended for the following applications: Fetal, Abdominal, Intraoperative, Pediatric, Small Parts, Transcranial, OB/GYN, Cardiac, Pelvic, Neonatal/Adult Cephalic, Vascular, Musculoskeletal, Superficial Musculoskeletal, and Peripheral Vascular applications.

The system also provides the ability to measure anatomical structures {fetal, abdominal, intraoperative, small organ, neonatal cephalic, adult cephalic, trans-esophageal, transvaginal, peripheral vessel, musculoskeletal (conventional), musculo-skeletal (superficial) and calculation packages that provide information to the clinician that may be used adjunctively with other medical data obtained by a physician for clinical diagnosis purposes.

The Arterial Health Package (AHP) software provides the physician with the capability to measure Intima Media Thickness and the option to reference normative tables that have been validated in peer-reviewed studies. The information is intended to provide the physician with an easily understood tool for communicating with patients regarding state of their cardiovascular system. This feature should be utilized according to the "ASE Consensus Statement; Use of Carotid Ultrasound to Identify Subclinical Vascular Disease and Evaluate Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Consensus Statement from the American Association of Echocardiography; Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Task Force, Endorsed by the Society for Vascular Imaging".

The Acuson Acunav Ultrasound Catheter is intra-cardiac and intra-luminal visualization of cardiac and great vessel anatomy and physiology, as well as visualization of other devices in the heart of adult and pediatric patients.

The ultrasound systems are multi-purpose mobile, software controlled diagnostic ultrasound systems with and on-screen display for thermal and mechanical indices related to potential bio-effect mechanisms. The function is to acquire primary or secondary harmonic ultrasound echo data and display it in B-Mode, Pulsed (PW) Doppler Mode, Continuous (CW) Doppler Mode, Color Doppler Mode, Amplitude, Doppler Mode, a combination of modes, or Harmonic Imaging and 3D/4D Imaging on a Flat Panel Display.

This document is a 510(k) Summary for the Siemens Medical Solutions ACUSON S1000, S2000, S3000 Diagnostic Ultrasound System. It asserts substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices (K152369) and does not describe acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the typical sense of a novel algorithm with performance metrics.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating that the modified systems have the same intended use and technological characteristics as their previously cleared counterparts, and that they conform to established medical device safety standards. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" here refer to conformance with those safety standards and the equivalence of intended use and technological features.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document:

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

The document does not present quantitative acceptance criteria or performance metrics for a novel algorithm. Instead, it asserts equivalence to previously cleared devices and compliance with general safety and performance standards.

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

Not applicable. This submission is for an updated version of a previously cleared device, not a novel AI algorithm requiring a new clinical performance study with a test set of patient data. The non-clinical tests mentioned (e.g., electrical safety, biocompatibility) do not typically involve patient data test sets with provenance.

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. As noted above, this submission relies on demonstrating equivalence to an existing device rather than a clinical performance study with expert-established ground truth.

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

Not applicable. No new clinical performance study was conducted that would require adjudication.

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. No MRMC study was done, as this is a 510(k) for an updated ultrasound system, not an AI-powered diagnostic aide requiring a comparative effectiveness study. The document explicitly states: "Since the S1000, S2000, S3000 systems in this submission use the same technology and principles as existing devices, clinical studies were not required to support substantial equivalence."

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm with standalone performance being evaluated. It's a diagnostic ultrasound system.

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

Not applicable. New clinical ground truth was not established for this 510(k) submission. The safety and performance are based on compliance with standards and equivalence to the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no mention of an AI algorithm or a training set in this submission.

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

Not applicable. There is no mention of an AI algorithm or a training set in this submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ultrasound imaging systems are intended for the following applications: Fetal, Abdominal, Intraoperative, Pediatric, Small Parts, Transcranial, OB/GYN, Cardiac, Pelvic, Neonatal/Adult Cephalic, Vascular, Musculoskeletal, Superficial Musculoskeletal, and Peripheral Vascular applications.

The system also provides the ability to measure anatomical structures {fetal, abdominal, intraoperative, pediatric, small organ, neonatal cephalic, adult cephalic, cardiac, trans-esophageal, transvaginal, peripheral vessel, musculo-skeletal (conventional), musculo-skeletal (superficial) and neonatal cardiac) and calculation packages that provide information to the clinician that may be used adjunctively with other medical data obtained by a physician for clinical diagnosis purposes.

The Arterial Health Package (AHP) software provides the physician with the capability to measure Intima Media Thickness and the option to reference normative tables that have been validated and published in peerreviewed studies. The information is intended to provide the physician with an easily understood tool for communicating with patients regarding state of their cardiovascular system. This feature should be utilized according to the "ASE Consensus Statement; Use of Carotid Ultrasound to Identify Subclinical Vascular Disease and Evaluate Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Consensus Statement from the American Association of Echocardiography; Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Task Force, Endorsed by the Society for Vascular lmaging".

The Acuson Acunav Ultrasound Catheter is intended for intra-cardiac and intra-luminal visualization of cardiac and great vessel anatomy and physiology, as well as visualization of other devices in the heart of adult and pediatric patients.

The ultrasound systems are multi-purpose mobile, software controlled diagnostic ultrasound systems with and on-screen display for thermal and mechanical indices related to potential bio-effect mechanisms. The function on borevire primary or secondary harmonic ultrasound echo data and display it in B-Mode, M-Mode, Pulsed (PW) Doppler Mode, Continuous (CW) Doppler Mode, Color Doppler Mode, Amplitude, Doppler Mode, a combination of modes, or Harmonic Imaging and 3D/4D Imaging on a Flat Panel Display.

This document is a 510(k) Pre-market Notification for a diagnostic ultrasound system. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study to prove acceptance criteria for a new AI-based device. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding "acceptance criteria" for AI performance simply isn't present in this type of submission.

However, I can extract information related to the device's technical characteristics and how its equivalence was established.

Analysis of the Provided Text:

The document describes the Acuson S1000, S2000, S3000 Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems manufactured by Siemens Medical Solutions, Inc. The submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared versions of the same systems (K132804).

Key Findings relevant to your request, but with caveats:

• No specific "acceptance criteria" are defined for AI/algorithm performance. This submission is for an ultrasound system, not a specific AI algorithm. The closest it comes to a performance claim for a specific component is the "Arterial Health Package (AHP) software," which "provides the physician with the capability to measure Intima Media Thickness and the option to reference normative tables that have been validated in peer-reviewed studies." However, no acceptance criteria for this device's measurement capacity are presented, nor is there a study within this document proving the device meets them. The AHP feature itself relies on external, peer-reviewed studies for its normative tables, not on studies conducted for this 510(k) submission to validate the specific device's measurement accuracy against defined criteria.
• No "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" is included for a novel AI component. The document explicitly states: "Since the S1000, S2000, S3000 systems use the same technology and principles as existing devices, clinical data is not required." This indicates that the submission relies on the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate devices and the underlying technology, not on new clinical trials or performance studies for novel features.
• "Device Performance" is inherently tied to being "substantially equivalent" to the predicate. The performance is deemed acceptable because it is demonstrably similar to a device already on the market.

Here's how I can address your points based on the provided text, heavily noting limitations:

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

As explained above, no specific quantitative acceptance criteria for algorithm performance are presented for this ultrasound system or its features. The core "acceptance criteria" in a 510(k) for a device like this are primarily related to safety, electrical safety, biocompatibility, and functional equivalence to a predicate device.

The "reported device performance" is essentially that it functions equivalently to the predicate device, offering various imaging modes, frequencies, and features, and meets relevant voluntary safety standards.

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

• Not applicable (N/A) for this submission. The document explicitly states: "Since the S1000, S2000, S3000 systems use the same technology and principles as existing devices, clinical data is not required." This implies that no new test set of patient data (clinical or image-based) was used to prove the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria. The submission relies on non-clinical engineering and safety tests and the established equivalence to the predicate device.

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)

• N/A. No test set requiring expert ground truth was described or presented in this 510(k). The clinical data requirement was waived due to substantial equivalence. The "Arterial Health Package (AHP) software" feature mentions "normative tables that have been validated in peer-reviewed studies," implying external expert validation for those tables, but not for its integration into this specific device as part of this submission.

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

• N/A. No test set requiring an adjudication method was described or presented.

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

• N/A. No MRMC study was performed or referenced. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, but a diagnostic ultrasound system. Clinical data, including MRMC studies, was not required.

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

• N/A. This submission is for an ultrasound system, not a standalone algorithm. While it contains software (like the AHP), its performance is not evaluated as a standalone AI given the nature of the submission. The AHP's function is "to provide the physician with the capability to measure" and "reference normative tables," suggesting a human-in-the-loop scenario where the physician retains clinical diagnosis responsibility.

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

• N/A as a primary method for this submission. For establishing the safety and performance of the overall ultrasound system, the ground truth is primarily based on compliance with established engineering and safety standards and the known performance of the predicate device. For the AHP feature, its normative tables were based on "peer-reviewed studies," which would have their own ground truth (likely clinical data, pathology, or outcomes depending on the study) but this is not data directly generated or verified for this 510(k).

8. The sample size for the training set

• N/A. This submission does not describe a machine learning model requiring a training set.

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

• N/A. No training set for a machine learning model is mentioned in this submission.

Summary of the document's approach:

This 510(k) submission for the Acuson S1000, S2000, S3000 Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing, legally marketed predicate devices. This means that:

• The device uses the same technology and principles of operation as previously cleared devices.
• It has the same intended uses as the predicate.
• Any differences in technological characteristics do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
• Non-clinical tests (acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning/disinfection, electrical/mechanical/thermal/EM safety, software validation, transducer/wireless performance) confirm compliance with recognized medical device safety standards.
• Clinical data (and thus specific "acceptance criteria" and studies to meet them for novel algorithmic performance) were explicitly deemed not required because the systems utilize established technology and principles.

Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria and studies to meet them, particularly concerning AI or complex algorithmic performance, is not present in this type of 510(k) submission which focuses on substantial equivalence for a general diagnostic imaging system.

Ask a specific question about this device

The S1000™ ultrasound imaging systems are intended for the following applications: Fetal. Abdominal, Intraoperative, Pediatric, Small Parts, Transcranial, OB/GYN, Cardiac, Pelvic, Neonatal/Adult Cephalic, Vascular, Musculoskeletal, Superficial Musculoskeletal, and Peripheral Vascular applications.

The system also provides the ability to measure anatomical structures {fetal, abdominal, intraoperative, intraoperative neurological, pediatric, small organ, neonatal cephalic, adult cephalic, cardiac, trans-esophageal, transvaginal, peripheral vessel, musculoskeletal (conventional), musculo-skeletal (superficial) and neonatal cardiac} and calculation packages that provide information that provide information to the clinician that may be used adiunctively with other medical data obtained by a physician for clinical diagnosis purposes.

The Arterial Health Package (AHP) software provides the physician with the capability to measure Intima Media Thickness and the option to reference normative tables that have been validated and published in peer-reviewed studies. The information is intended to provide the physician with an easily understood tool for communicating with patients regarding state of their cardiovascular system. This feature should be utilized according to the "ASE Consensus Statement; Use of Carotid Ultrasound to Identify Subclinical Vascular Disease and Evaluate Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Consensus Statement from the American Association of Echocardiography; Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Task Force, Endorsed by the Society for Vascular Imaging".

The Acuson Acunav Ultrsound Catheter is intended for intra-cardiac and intra-luminal visualization of cardiac and great vessel anatomy and physiology, as well as visualization of other devices in the heart of adult and pediatric patients.

The S1000™ Ultrasound System is a multi-purpose mobile, software controlled diagnostic ultrasound system with and on-screen display for thermal and mechanical indices related to potential bio-effect mechanisms. Its function is to acquire primary or secondary harmonic ultrasound echo data and display it in B-Mode, M-Mode, Pulsed (PW) Doppler Mode, Continuous (CW) Doppler Mode, Color Doppler Mode, Amplitude Doppler Mode, a combination of modes, or Harmonic Imaging and 3D/4D Imaging on a Flat Panel Display. It is substantially equivalent to the S3000 system (K122825) which is a legally marketed device.

The provided 510(k) summary for the Acuson S1000™ Diagnostic Ultrasound System does not include a separate section for acceptance criteria or details regarding a study specifically designed to prove the device meets performance acceptance criteria.

Instead, the submission primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Acuson S3000 Ultrasound System (K122825)) rather than providing detailed performance metrics or clinical study results for the S1000 itself.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided, addressing the requested points where possible, and noting where information is absent:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not explicitly provided in the given document. The submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (Acuson S3000 Ultrasound System). Therefore, direct numerical performance metrics or acceptance criteria for the S1000 are not detailed. The "performance" is implicitly tied to meeting the same functional capabilities and safety standards as the predicate device.

The tables in sections {6} (Summary of Technological Characteristics - New Device Compared to Predicate) and {7}-{29} (Diagnostic Ultrasound Indications for Use Form for various transducers) indicate that the S1000 system and its transducers support various clinical applications and modes of operation (B, M, PWD, CWD, Color Doppler, Amplitude Doppler, Combined) "P" (previously cleared by FDA), indicating equivalence to the predicate's capabilities.

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

This information is not provided. As clinical data was "not required" (see point 8 below), there wouldn't be a test set with patient data for clinical performance evaluation.

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

This information is not provided. Given that clinical data was not required, there was no independent test set requiring expert ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided. See point 3.

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

There is no mention of an MRMC study, AI assistance, or any effect size related to human reader improvement. The device is a diagnostic ultrasound system, and the submission does not indicate any AI components or human-in-the-loop performance studies of that nature.

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 an ultrasound system, not an AI algorithm evaluated for standalone performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

This information is not provided for the device itself. For the Arterial Health Package (AHP) software feature, it mentions referencing "normative tables that have been validated and published in peer-reviewed studies." This implies that the ground truth for these normative tables was established through published research, but it doesn't specify if new ground truth was established for this submission.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of device performance or algorithms in this submission.

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

This information is not provided. See point 8.

Summary of Device Acceptance Approach:

The core of this 510(k) submission for the Acuson S1000 Diagnostic Ultrasound System is the argument of substantial equivalence to an existing, legally marketed predicate device (Acuson S3000 Ultrasound System (K122825)).

The submission states:

• "The S1000™ Ultrasound System is substantially equivalent to the company's own S3000 Ultrasound System (K122825)." {1-0}
• "Since the S1000 uses the same technology and principles as existing devices, clinical data is not required." {3-0}

Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met by demonstrating that the S1000:

1. Has the same intended use as the predicate device {1-0, 1-1, 6-0}.
2. Has similar technological characteristics to the predicate device {1-1, 6-0}. The tables in section {6} highlight the features and characteristics that are common or equivalent between the S1000 and S3000.
3. Complies with relevant safety and performance standards for medical devices (e.g., UL 60601-1, IEC 60601-2-37, ISO 10993-1 for biocompatibility) {3-0}. These non-clinical tests would serve as the primary evidence for safety and basic performance conformance.

Ask a specific question about this device