Search Results

The MAGNETOM systems are indicated for use as magnetic resonance diagnostic devices (MRDD) that produce transverse, sagittal, coronal and oblique cross sectional images, spectroscopic images and/or spectra, and that display the internal structure and/or function of the head, body or extremities.

Other physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra may also be produced. Depending on the region of interest, contrast agents may be used. These images and/or spectra and the physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra when interpreted by a trained physician, yield information that may assist in diagnosis.

The MAGNETOM systems described above may also be used for imaging during interventional procedures when performed with MR compatible devices such as in-room display and MR-Safe biopsy needles.

The subject device, syngo MR E11C system software, is being made available for the following MAGNETOM MR Systems:

• MAGNETOM Aera,
• MAGNETOM Skyra, ●
• MAGNETOM Prisma and
• MAGNETOM Prisma™ ●

The syngo MR E11C SW includes new sequences. new features and minor modifications of already existing features.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for new software (syngo MR E11C) for Siemens MAGNETOM MR systems. However, it does not contain the detailed information required to answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as typically expected for AI/ML device submissions.

This submission is for a software update to existing Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices (MRDDs), and the focus is on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. The "study" mentioned is primarily non-clinical performance testing and software verification/validation, rather than a clinical study with acceptance criteria for specific diagnostic outcomes.

Here's an attempt to extract and infer information based on the provided text, highlighting what is present and what is missing:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance or specific metrics. Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the new software's features perform "as intended" and maintain "equivalent safety and performance profile" compared to predicate devices.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: "Sample clinical images were taken for particular new and modified sequences." The specific number or characteristics of these images (sample size) is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. It only mentions "sample clinical images," suggesting clinical data was used for assessment.

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

• This information is not provided. The document states "Image quality assessments... were completed," but does not detail who performed these assessments or how ground truth was established for them. For a diagnostic device, interpretation by a "trained physician" is mentioned in the Indications for Use, but this is a general statement about the device's usage, not specific to the assessment of the new software.

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

• This information is not provided.

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. The document explicitly states: "No clinical tests were conducted to support the subject device and the substantial equivalence argument..."
• This submission is not for an AI-enhanced diagnostic tool in the sense of providing automated interpretations or assisting human readers in a measurable way with specific diagnostic outcomes. It's an update to MR imaging acquisition software. Therefore, the concept of "how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply in this context.

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

• The device is a Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Device (MRDD) software update. Its output is images and/or spectra that are "interpreted by a trained physician" to "assist in diagnosis." As such, it is inherently a human-in-the-loop system. The non-clinical tests involved "Image quality assessments" and "Acoustic noise measurements," which are performance evaluations of the acquisition capabilities, not a standalone diagnostic interpretation by the algorithm.
• Therefore, a standalone diagnostic performance evaluation (algorithm only) in the context of providing a diagnosis was not performed or described.

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

• For "Image quality assessments," the type of ground truth is not explicitly stated. It can be inferred that it would likely involve visual assessment by experts against what is considered normal or expected for an MR image, potentially comparing to images acquired with predicate software or known anatomical/pathological features. However, specific ground truth methods like pathology or long-term outcomes data are not mentioned.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The document does not mention a separate training set or details about its size. This submission focuses on software changes and their verification, not on the development of a new AI model that requires a distinct training phase.

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

• Since a separate training set is not mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not provided.

Summary of what's present and what's missing:

This 510(k) submission primarily focuses on demonstrating that new software features (like quiet diffusion imaging, improved fast TSE, simultaneous multi-slice imaging, and a short acquisition time brain examination protocol) for existing MR systems maintain the fundamental technological characteristics, safety, and effectiveness of predicate devices. The "study" here is a series of non-clinical tests (image quality review, acoustic noise measurements, software V&V) rather than a clinical trial measuring diagnostic accuracy or reader performance. The level of detail you're asking for, especially concerning clinical study design elements like sample size, expert reader qualifications, adjudication methods, and ground truth establishment for diagnostic output, is typically found in submissions for AI/ML diagnostic tools that directly interpret images or provide diagnostic assistance, which is not the primary claim of this particular device update.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MAGNETOM Spectra is indicated for use as a magnetic resonance diagnostic device (MRDD) that produces transverse, sagittal, coronal and oblique cross sectional images and/or spectra, and that displays the internal structure and/or function of the head, body, or extremities.

Other physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra may also be produced. Depending on the region of interest, contrast agents may be used. These images and the physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra, when interpreted by a trained physician, yield information that may assist in diagnosis.

The MAGNETOM systems may also be used for imaging during interventional procedures when performed with MR compatible devices such as in-room display and MR-Safe biopsy needles.

The subject device, Software syngo MR E11M for the MAGNETOM Spectra, is the latest software version for the Siemens MR MAGNETOM Spectra. It is modified based on the software version syngo MR E11A, which was cleared with K141977 on November 19, 2014. The software functionality and applications are based on syngo MR E11A except in technical instances where adaptations were needed to support the system specific hardware and optimize the sequence/protocols. System tests validating the aforementioned adapations are provided in Appendix 9.

Listed below are the hardware updates to the MAGNETOM Spectra systems with software syngo MR E11M:

• · two new coils
  • o Breast 18 (cleared with K133435 on December 12, 2013)
  • o Pediatric 16 (cleared with K140998 on July 11, 2014)
• a modified MARS(Measurement and Reconstruction System) .
• an updated MRAWP/MRWP(Syngo Acquisition Workplace/ Syngo . Workplace) based on the new host platform
• . minor hardware changes to the transmit unit

The MAGNETOM Spectra with software version syngo MR E11M will be offered ex-factory (new production) as well as in-field upgrades for the currently installed MAGNETOM Spectra systems.

The provided text does NOT describe acceptance criteria for a device, nor does it detail a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way envisioned by the request.

Instead, this document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA to Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., concerning the MAGNETOM Spectra, a magnetic resonance diagnostic device. The purpose of a 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that a device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than to prove it meets specific performance acceptance criteria through clinical studies.

Here's an analysis based on the available information, highlighting what is and is not present:

Missing Information:

• Acceptance Criteria Table: The document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, signal-to-noise ratio targets).
• Reported Device Performance against Acceptance Criteria: Since no acceptance criteria are listed for diagnostic performance, there's no data reported against them. The document mentions nonclinical tests for SNR, image uniformity, and heating for new coils, and verification/validation for other software features, but doesn't provide specific numerical results or target values.
• Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance: No test set (clinical or otherwise for diagnostic efficacy) is described, so sample size, country of origin, or retrospective/prospective nature of data are not detailed.
• Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth: Not applicable, as there's no diagnostic performance study with ground truth establishment described.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not mentioned or conducted.
• Standalone Performance Study: No standalone diagnostic performance study (algorithm only) is described. The device is an MRI system, not an AI algorithm.
• Type of Ground Truth Used: Not applicable for diagnostic performance as no such study is presented.
• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable, as this is an MRI system and software update, not an AI model trained on a dataset.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

**Information that is available: **

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices for the MAGNETOM Spectra with software syngo MR E11M.

• Device Description: The MAGNETOM Spectra with software syngo MR E11M is described as the latest software version for the Siemens MR MAGNETOM Spectra, modified from syngo MR E11A. It includes two new coils (Breast 18 and Pediatric 16), a modified MARS (Measurement and Reconstruction System), an updated MRAWP/MRWP (Syngo Acquisition Workplace/Syngo Workplace) and minor hardware changes.
• Nonclinical Tests:
  • The coils were tested for SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio), image uniformity, and heating.
  • All other software features were verified and validated.
  • The document states these tests "demonstrate that the device performs as intended." However, no specific quantitative results or acceptance thresholds are provided.
• Clinical Tests: "No clinical tests were conducted to support the subject device and the substantial equivalence argument, however clinical images were provided to support the new coils of the subject device." This explicitly states that no diagnostic clinical study was performed for this 510(k).
• Ground Truth (for New Coils): While not explicitly stated as "ground truth," the mention of "clinical images provided to support the new coils" implies that the performance of these coils was visually assessed by experts using clinical data, likely within internal validation processes, to ensure image quality was acceptable. However, the details of this assessment are not provided.
• Predicates:
  • Primary Predicate: MAGNETOM Spectra with syngo MR D12 (K121160)
  • Secondary Predicate: Siemens MAGNETOM Skyra with syngo MR E11A (K141977)
• Regulatory Basis: The FDA's review concludes that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, meaning it has the same intended use and technological characteristics as the predicate, or if it has different technological characteristics, it does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory clearance letter and 510(k) summary, not a study report detailing performance against specific acceptance criteria for diagnostic accuracy or efficacy. It relies on non-clinical testing and substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicates for device clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MAGNETOM systems described above are indicated for use as a magnetic resonance diagnostic device (MRDD) that produces transverse, sagittal, coronal and oblique cross sectional images and/or spectra, and that displays the internal structure and/or function of the head, body, or extremities.

Other physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra may also be produced. Depending on the region of interest, contrast agents may be used. These images and/or spectra and the physical parameters derived from the images and/or spectra when interpreted by a trained physician vield information that may assist in diagnosis.

The MAGNETOM systems described above may also be used for imaging during interventional procedures when performed with MR compatible devices such as in-room display and MR-Safe biopsy needles.

The subject device, software syngo MR E11A for MAGNETOM Aera and MAGNETOM Skyra offers two new applications, LiverLab (an application of non-invasive liver evaluation) and MyoMaps (an application designed to provide a means to generate pixel maps for myocardial MR relaxation times). In addition, software syngo MR E11A makes the Dot Cockpit available for the user to modify and create Siemens Dot Engine workflows in a very intuitive way which supplements some of the support of an application specialist. The software syngo MR E11A also includes new and modified sequences as well as minor modifications of already existing features. In additional coils are offered and some hardware components have been modified.

Siemens Medical Solutions, USA Inc., intends to market MAGNETOM Aera and MAGNETOM Skyra with new software, syngo MR E11A. While syngo MR E11A offers additional capabilities with respect to the predicate device, the MAGNETOM Aera and MAGNETOM Skyra have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device (K121434; Cleared November, 5, 2012).

Furthermore, Siemens Medical Solutions, USA Inc., intends to market a new configuration of the MAGNETOM Skyra with 24 receive channels with software syngo MR E11A.

The MAGNETOM Aera and MAGNETOM Skyra will be offered ex-factory (new production) as well as in-field upgrades for the currently installed MAGNETOM Aera and MAGNETOM Skyra systems. The new MAGNETOM Skyra configuration with 24 receive channels will be offered as an ex-factory option (new production).

This FDA 510(k) summary describes a new software version (syngo MR E11A) for existing Siemens MAGNETOM Aera and MAGNETOM Skyra MRI systems. The primary focus of the document is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previous versions and other cleared devices, rather than establishing new acceptance criteria for a novel device.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, and specific study details (like sample size for test sets, expert qualifications, and adjudication methods) is largely not present for the overall system or its new features as this is an equivalence submission. The closest equivalent to "acceptance criteria" are the results of performance tests demonstrating the device performs as intended and is "substantially equivalent."

However, I can extract the available information regarding testing for the new features:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• MyoMaps Comparison Study:
  • Sample Size: 100 persons.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but involved "volunteers."
• LiverLab Validation:
  • Sample Size: Not specified beyond "volunteer" and "phantom scans."
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, beyond "volunteer" and "phantom scans" and "synthetic raw data."
• New Coils, Sequences, Algorithms, Acoustic Noise: Sample sizes not specified; phantom testing mentioned.
• Clinical tests (overall device): No clinical tests were conducted to support the substantial equivalence argument beyond the provision of clinical images to support new coils and software features.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The document states that the images and spectra, "when interpreted by a trained physician, yield information that may assist in diagnosis." However, for validation studies, the specifics of expert involvement or ground truth establishment are not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• This information is not provided in the document.

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 MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not mentioned or performed as part of this submission. The "MyoMaps" feature was compared to "Thalassaemia Tools," which is a comparison of two tools, not a human-AI comparison.

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

• The document describes "LiverLab" validation using "volunteer as well as phantom scans, and synthetic raw data" and "MyoMaps" being "tested on volunteers." This suggests standalone performance evaluation for these specific features. However, detailed metrics of standalone performance are not provided, only that the "results... demonstrate that the device performs as intended."

7. The type of ground truth used

• MyoMaps: The comparison was against "Thalassaemia Tools." For the "volunteers" testing, the method of establishing ground truth for myocardial MR relaxation times beyond direct measurement is not specified.
• LiverLab: Validation involved "volunteer as well as phantom scans, and synthetic raw data." The ground truth for phantom scans would be known parameters. For volunteer scans, the ground truth source for liver evaluation is not explicitly stated (e.g., biopsy results, clinical diagnosis).
• For other features (coils, sequences), the ground truth generally relies on physical measurements and expected image properties.

8. The sample size for the training set

• This information is not provided in the document. The submission focuses on verification and validation of implemented features rather than detailing the development or training of algorithms.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. Given that details on a training set are absent, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device