Search Results

uWS-MR is a software solution intended to be used for viewing, manipulation, communication, and storage of medical images. It supports interpretation and evaluation of examinations within healthcare institutions. It has the following additional indications:

The MR Stitching is intended to create full-format images from overlapping MR volume data sets acquired at multiple stages.

The Dynamic application is intended to provide a general post-processing tool for time course studies.

The Image Fusion application is intended to combine two different image series so that the displayed anatomical structures match in both series.

MRS (MR Spectroscopy) is intended to evaluate the molecule constitution and spatial distribution of cell metabolism. It provides a set of tools to view, process, and analyze the complex MRS data. This application supports the analysis for both SVS (Single Voxel Spectroscopy) and CSI (Chemical Shift Imaging) data.

The MAPs application is intended to provide a number of arithmetic and statistical functions for evaluating dynamic processes and images. These functions are applied to the grayscale values of medical images.

The MR Breast Evaluation application provides the user a tool to calculate parameter maps from contrast-enhanced time-course images.

The Brain Perfusion application is intended to allow the visualization of temporal variations in the dynamic susceptibility time series of MR datasets.

MR Vessel Analysis is intended to provide a tool for viewing, manipulating, and evaluating MR vascular images.

The Inner view application is intended to perform a virtual camera view through hollow structures (cavities), such as vessels.

The DCE analysis is intended to view, manipulate, and evaluate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI images.

The United Neuro is intended to view, manipulate, and evaluate MR neurological images.

uWS-MR is a comprehensive software solution designed to process, review and analyze MR (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) studies. It can transfer images in DICOM 3.0 format over a medical imaging network or import images from external storage devices such as CD/DVDs or flash drives. These images can be functional data, as well as anatomical datasets. It can be at one or more time-points or include one or more time-frames. Multiple display formats including MIP and volume rendering and multiple statistical analysis including mean, maximum and minimum over a user-defined region is supported. A trained, licensed physician can interpret these displayed images as well as the statistics as per standard practice.

This subject device contains the following modifications/improvements in comparison to the predicate device uWS-MR:

1. Modified Indications for Use Statement;

2. Added some advanced applications:

• DCE Analysis
• United Neuro

The provided text from the FDA 510(k) summary (K183164) for uWS-MR describes a software solution primarily for viewing, manipulation, and storage of medical images, with added advanced applications such as DCE Analysis and United Neuro. However, the document does not provide specific acceptance criteria or detailed study data to prove the device meets those criteria in the typical format of a clinical performance study.

The submission is for a modification to an existing device (uWS-MR, K172999) by adding two new features: DCE Analysis and United Neuro. The "study" described is primarily a performance verification demonstrating that these new features function as intended and are substantially equivalent to previously cleared reference devices with similar functionalities.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document, noting where specific details are absent:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or a table of reported device performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, as would be typical for an AI-driven diagnostic device. Instead, the "performance" is assessed through verification that the new features (DCE Analysis and United Neuro) operate comparably to predicate devices and meet functional and safety standards.

The comparison tables (Table 2 for DCE Analysis and the subsequent table for United Neuro) serve as a substitute for performance criteria by demonstrating functional equivalence to reference devices.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria (based on comparison to reference devices): The new functionalities (DCE Analysis and United Neuro) must exhibit the same core operational features (e.g., image loading, viewing, motion correction, parametric maps, ROI analysis, result saving, reporting for DCE; and motion correction, functional activation calculation, diffusion parameter analysis, display adjustment, fusion, fiber tracking, time-intensity curve, ROI statistics, result saving, reporting for United Neuro) as their respective predicate/reference devices.

Reported Device Performance (Functional Equivalence):
The document states that the proposed device's functionalities are "Same" or "Yes" compared to the reference devices for all listed operational features, implying that they perform equivalently in terms of available functions.

(Note: The document uses "/" in some rows for reference devices, which generally means the feature wasn't applicable or explicitly listed for that device, but the "Remark" column still concludes "Same" or "Yes," implying that the proposed device's functionality is considered equivalent or non-inferior within the context of substantial equivalence.)

Study Details:

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:
   The document mentions "Performance Evaluation Report For MR DCE" and "Performance Evaluation Report For MR United neuro" as part of the "Performance Verification." However, it does not specify any sample sizes (number of cases or images) used for these performance evaluations. It also does not specify the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature of the data).

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   The document does not provide any information regarding the number or qualifications of experts used for establishing ground truth, as it's a software verification and validation rather than a clinical reader study.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   Since no reader study or expert review for ground truth establishment is described, there's no mention of an adjudication method.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was reported or required. The submission is for a software post-processing tool, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that directly impacts human reader performance or diagnosis.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   The performance verification for the new features (DCE Analysis and United Neuro) can be considered a form of standalone testing, as it demonstrates the algorithms' functional capabilities and outputs. However, the document doesn't provide quantitative metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity for these algorithms. It focuses on functional equivalence to existing cleared devices rather than a standalone performance benchmark against a clinical ground truth.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   The document does not specify the type of "ground truth" used for the performance verification of the DCE Analysis and United Neuro features. Given the nature of a 510(k) for a post-processing software with added functionalities, the "ground truth" likely refers to the expected algorithmic output or behavior as defined by engineering specifications and comparison to the outputs of the predicate/reference devices, rather than a clinical ground truth derived from expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes for disease detection.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   The document does not mention any training set size. This is because the device is described as "MR Image Post-Processing Software" and its functionalities seem to be based on established image processing algorithms rather than a machine learning model that requires a distinct training phase.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   As no training set is mentioned for a machine learning model, this information is not applicable/not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

uWS-MR is a software solution intended to be used for viewing, manipulation, and storage of medical images. It supports interpretation and evaluations within healthcare institutions. It has the following additional indications:

The MR Stitching is intended to create full-format images from overlapping MR volume data sets acquired at multiple stages.

The Dynamic application is intended to provide a general post-processing tool for time course studies.

The Image Fusion application is intended to combine two different image series so that the displayed anatomical structures match in both series.

MRS (MR Spectroscopy) is intended to evaluate the molecule constitution and spatial distribution of cell metabolism. It provides a set of tools to view, process, and analyze the complex MRS data. This application supports the analysis for both SVS (Single Voxel Spectroscopy) and CSI (Chemical Shift Imaging) data.

The MAPs application is intended to provide a number of arithmetic and statistical functions for evaluating dynamic processes and images. These functions are applied to the grayscale values of medical images.

The MR Breast Evaluation application provides the user a tool to calculate parameter maps from contrast-enhanced timecourse images.

The Brain Perfusion application is intended to allow the visualizations in the dynamic susceptibility time series of MR datasets.

MR Vessel Analysis is intended to provide a tool for viewing, manipulating MR vascular images. The Inner view application is intended to perform a virtual camera view through hollow structures (cavities), such as vessels.

uWS-MR is a comprehensive software solution designed to process, review and analyze MR (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) studies. It can transfer images in DICOM 3.0 format over a medical imaging network or import images from external storage devices such as CD/DVDs or flash drives. These images can be functional data, as well as anatomical datasets. It can be at one or more time-points or include one or more time-frames. Multiple display formats including MIP and volume rendering and multiple statistical analysis including mean, maximum and minimum over a user-defined region is supported. A trained, licensed physician can interpret these displayed images as well as the statistics as per standard practice.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the uWS-MR software. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a standalone study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance metrics for a novel AI-powered diagnostic device.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding specific acceptance criteria, detailed study design for proving the device meets those criteria, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment cannot be fully extracted from this document.

Here's what can be inferred and stated based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly list quantitative acceptance criteria in a pass/fail format nor provide specific, measurable performance metrics for the proposed device (uWS-MR) in comparison to such criteria. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices by comparing their features and functionalities. The "Remark" column consistently states "Same," indicating that the proposed device's features align with its predicates, implying it meets comparable performance.

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

The document states: "Software verification and validation testing was provided to demonstrate safety and efficacy of the proposed device." and lists "Performance Verification" for various applications. However, it does not specify the sample size used for these performance tests (test set) or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective nature).

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 filing focuses on technical and functional equivalence, not on clinical performance evaluated against expert ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method

This information is not provided in the document.

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

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned as being performed or required. The submission is a 510(k) for substantial equivalence, which often relies more on technical verification and comparison to predicate devices rather than new clinical effectiveness studies.

6. Standalone Performance

The document clearly states: "Not Applicable to the proposed device, because the device is stand-alone software." This implies that the device is intended to perform its functions (viewing, manipulation, post-processing) as a standalone software, and its performance was evaluated in this standalone context during verification and validation, aligning with the predicates which are also software solutions. However, no specific standalone performance metrics are provided.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The document does not explicitly state the "type of ground truth" used for performance verification. Given the nature of the device (image post-processing software) and the 510(k) pathway, performance verification likely involved:

• Technical validation: Comparing outputs of uWS-MR's features (e.g., image stitching, parameter maps, ROI measurements) against known good results, simulated data, or outputs from the predicate devices.
• Functional testing: Ensuring features operate as intended (e.g., if a rotation function rotates the image correctly).
  Pathology or outcomes data are typically used for diagnostic devices with novel clinical claims, which is not the primary focus here.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of a "training set" typically applies to machine learning or AI models that learn from data. While the uWS-MR is post-processing software, and could potentially incorporate AI elements (though not explicitly stated beyond general "post-processing"), the document does not mention a training set size. This strongly suggests that a machine learning or deep learning model with a distinct training phase, as commonly understood, was not a primary component evaluated in this filing or, if present, its training data details were not part of this summary.

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

As no training set is mentioned (see point 8), the establishment of its ground truth is not applicable and therefore not described in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device

Multi-Modality Tumor Tracking (MMTT) application is a post processing software application used to display, process, analyze , quantify and manipulate anatomical and functional images, for CT, MR PET/CT and SPECT/CT images and/or multiple time-points. The MMTT application is intended for use on tumors which are known/confirmed to be pathologically diagnosed cancer. The results obtained may be used as a tool by clinicians in determining the diagnosis of patient disease conditions in various organs, tissues, and other anatomical structure.

Philips Medical Systems' Multi-Modality Tumor Tracking (MMTT) application is a post - processing software. It is a non-organ specific, multi-modality application which is intended to function as an advanced visualization application. The MMTT application is intended for displaying, processing, analyzing, quantifying and manipulating anatomical and functional images, from multi-modality of CT ,MR PET/CT and SPECT/CT scans.

The Multi-Modality Tumor Tracking (MMTT) application allows the user to view imaging, perform segmentation and measurements and provides quantitative and characterizing information of oncology lesions, such as solid tumor and lymph node, for a single study or over the time course of several studies (multiple time-points). Based on the measurements, the MMTT application provides an automatic tool which may be used by clinicians in diagnosis, management and surveillance of solid tumors and lymph node, conditions in various organs, tissues, and other anatomical structures, based on different oncology response criteria.

The provided text does not contain detailed information about a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria, nor does it include a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.

The submission is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Multi-Modality Tumor Tracking (MMTT) application." For 510(k) submissions, the primary goal is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a device meets specific, pre-defined performance acceptance criteria through a rigorous clinical or non-clinical study that would be typical for a PMA (Premarket Approval) application.

Here's what can be extracted and inferred from the document regarding the device's validation:

Key Information from the Document:

• Study Type: No clinical studies were required or performed to support equivalence. The validation was based on non-clinical performance testing, specifically "Verification and Validation (V&V) activities."
• Demonstration of Compliance: The V&V tests were intended to demonstrate compliance with international and FDA-recognized consensus standards and FDA guidance documents, and that the device "Meets the acceptance criteria and is adequate for its intended use and specifications."
• Acceptance Criteria (Implied): While no quantitative table is provided, the acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to:
  • Compliance with standards: ISO 14971, IEC 62304, IEC 62366-1, DICOM PS 3.1-3.18.
  • Compliance with FDA guidance documents for software in medical devices.
  • Addressing intended use, technological characteristics claims, requirement specifications, and risk management results.
  • Functionality requirements and performance claims as described in the device description (e.g., longitudinal follow-up, multi-modality support, automated/manual registration, segmentation, measurement calculations, support for oncology response criteria, SUV calculations).
• Performance (Implied): "Testing performed demonstrated the Multi-Modality Tumor Tracking (MMTT) meets all defined functionality requirements and performance claims." Specific quantitative performance metrics are not given.

Information NOT present in the document:

The following information, which would typically be found in a detailed study report proving acceptance criteria, is not available in this 510(k) summary:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document states the device "Meets the acceptance criteria and is adequate for its intended use and specifications," but does not list these criteria or the test results.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: No details on the number of images, patients, or data characteristics used for non-clinical 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): Since it was non-clinical testing, there's no mention of expert involvement in establishing ground truth for a test set.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable as no expert-adjudicated clinical test set is described.
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 MRMC study was performed as no clinical studies were undertaken.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The V&V activities would have included testing the software's functionality, which could be considered standalone performance testing, but specific metrics are not provided. The device is a "post processing software application" used "by clinicians," implying a human-in-the-loop tool rather than a fully autonomous AI diagnostic device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not detailed for the non-clinical V&V testing. For the intended use, the device is for "tumors which are known/confirmed to be pathologically diagnosed cancer," suggesting that the "ground truth" for the intended use context is pathological diagnosis. However, this is not the ground truth for the V&V testing itself.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable; this is a 510(k) for a software application, not specifically an AI/ML product where a training set size would be relevant for model development. The document does not describe any machine learning model training.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable for the same reason as above.

In summary, this 510(k) submission relies on a demonstration of substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices and internal non-clinical verification and validation testing, rather than a clinical study with specific, quantifiable performance metrics against an established ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device