Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K172869
    Date Cleared
    2017-10-20

    (30 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    892.1680
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K161942, K161966, K132261

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Discovery XR656 HD is intended to generate digital radiographic images of the skull, spinal column, chest, abdomen, extremities, and other body parts in patients of all ages. Applications can be performed with the patient sitting, standing, or lying in the prone or supine position and the system is intended for use in all routine radiography exams. Optional image pasting function enables the operator to stitch sequentially acquired radiographs into a single image.
    The device is not intended for mammographic applications.

    Device Description

    The Discovery XR656 HD Radiography X-ray System is designed as a modular system with components that include an Overhead Tube Suspension with tube/collimator, wallstand, Table, X-ray generator, and wireless digital detectors. The System generates diagnostic radiographic images which can be sent through a DICOM network for applications including printing, viewing, and storage. The components may be combined in different configurations to meet specific customer needs. In addition, upgrade configurations are available for predicate devices. The optional image pasting function enables the operator to stitch sequentially acquired radiographs into a single image.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the GE HUALUN MEDICAL SYSTEMS CO. Ltd. Discovery XR656 HD (K172869), a digital radiographic X-ray system. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Optima XR646, K143270) rather than presenting a performance study with detailed acceptance criteria and clinical efficacy results for the entire system.

    The core of the submission revolves around the change in detector technology from Ultra Wideband (UWB) to WiFi (802.11) for image transfer, utilizing cleared detectors (PerkinElmer XRpad2 3025 HWC-M Flat Panel Detector, K161942, and PerkinElmer XRpad2 4336 HWC-M Flat Panel Detector, K161966).

    Here's an breakdown of the information requested, based on the provided text:

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

    The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for the Discovery XR656 HD as a standalone diagnostic tool. Instead, it relies on demonstrating compliance with recognized standards and successful design verification and validation testing to ensure that the modifications (primarily the change to WiFi-enabled detectors) do not negatively impact the device's safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate.

    The "Summary of Non-Clinical Tests" section mentions compliance with several voluntary standards. While these standards implicitly contain performance requirements, the specific numerical acceptance criteria for those requirements and the actual measured performance of the Discovery XR656 HD are not detailed in this summary.

    Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Compliance and EQUIVALENCE claims)Reported Device Performance (as stated in summary)
    Compliance with ES60601-1 (Basic safety and essential performance)Device and its applications comply with ES60601-1.
    Compliance with IEC 60601-1-2 (Electromagnetic Compatibility)Device and its applications comply with IEC 60601-1-2.
    Compliance with IEC 60601-1-3 (Radiation Protection)Device and its applications comply with IEC 60601-1-3.
    Compliance with IEC 60601-1-6 (Usability)Device and its applications comply with IEC 60601-1-6.
    Compliance with IEC 60601-2-54 (X-ray equipment for radiography and radioscopy)Device and its applications comply with IEC 60601-2-54.
    Compliance with IEC 62366 (Application of usability engineering)Device and its applications comply with IEC 62366.
    Compliance with PS 3.1 - 3.20 DICOM setDevice and its applications comply with PS 3.1 - 3.20 DICOM set.
    Mitigation of risks identified for wireless image transferRisks were reviewed and mitigated with design controls and labeling. Mitigations were verified and validated with acceptable results.
    Safety and effectiveness not affected by modificationsDesign verification and validation testing performed confirmed that safety and effectiveness have not been affected.
    No new potential safety risksThis update to the system does not result in any new potential safety risks.
    Same technological characteristics as predicateHas the same technological characteristics.
    Performs as well as predicate devicesPerforms as well as the devices currently on the market.
    Safe, effective, and substantially equivalent to predicate devicesAfter analyzing design verification and validation testing, it is concluded that the Discovery XR656 HD is as safe, as effective, and performance is substantially equivalent to the 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)

    The document states, "The subject of this premarket submission, Discovery XR656 HD, did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence for the incorporation WiFi (802.11) enabled detectors due to these detectors having their own 510(k) clearance."

    Therefore, for the Discovery XR656 HD itself, there was no specific clinical "test set" and corresponding sample size for demonstrating diagnostic performance beyond its cleared components. The evaluation focused on non-clinical design verification and validation. The "testing/documentation" mentioned was "according to... FDA guidance documents" (for software and cybersecurity), and these were "bench" tests.

    The cleared detectors (PerkinElmer XRpad2 3025 HWC-M and 4336 HWC-M) would have had their own clinical data for their respective 510(k) clearances (K161942 and K161966), but that data is not provided here for the Discovery XR656 HD system.

    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)

    Since no clinical studies were performed for the Discovery XR656 HD's diagnostic performance, there was no test set requiring expert-established ground truth in the context of diagnostic accuracy. The ground truth for the training of the system's image processing (if applicable, which falls under "image processing algorithms to accommodate multiple image matrix sizes") is not detailed here.

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

    Not applicable as no clinical test set for diagnostic performance was conducted for this submission.

    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 device is a digital radiographic X-ray system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool in the sense of providing automated readings or decision support. The "image processing algorithms" mentioned are for accommodating different image matrix sizes and are not described as AI for diagnostic assistance. There is no mention of an MRMC study or AI assistance.

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

    Not applicable. This is a medical imaging system, not a standalone algorithm. The "image processing algorithms" are integrated into the system, and their performance is evaluated as part of the overall system's technical validity, not as a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

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

    As no clinical study for diagnostic performance was required or conducted for this 510(k) submission, the concept of "ground truth" (in the diagnostic sense) for this specific submission is not present. The "ground truth" for the system's functionality was established through design verification and validation testing against engineering specifications and industry standards.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    The document does not specify a training set sample size. While "image processing algorithms" are mentioned, implying potential machine learning components, no details on their training are provided. The focus of the submission is on hardware and communication changes, and the safety and effectiveness of the system with these changes.

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

    Not applicable. No information is provided about a training set or its ground truth establishment.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1