Search Results

Intended for use by a qualified/trained doctor or technician on adult subjects for taking diagnostic radiographic exposures of the skull, spinal column, chest, abdomen, extremities, and other body parts. Applications can be performed with the patient sitting, standing, or lying in the prone or supine position. Not for mammography.

The Digital Radiography System (MobileApex 60E, MobileApex 60F, MobileApex 60G, MobileApex 60H) is comprised of a High Voltage Generator with a maximum power output of 63kW, the Digital Radiography System (MobileApex 60E, MobileApex 60F, MobileApex 60C, MobileApex 60H) can meet different exposure needs for varying positions and body mass. With the Digital Radiography System's (MobileApex 60E, MobileApex 60F, MobileApex 60G, MobileApex 60H) state-of-the-art design and powerful 63kW generator coupled with the Digital Detector (CareView 1500Cwe, CareView 750Cw, Mars1717X, Mars1417X, Luna 1012X) and Digital Radiography Operator Console, users can obtain clear images quickly and easily.

Based on the provided text, the device in question is a Digital Radiography System (MobileApex 60E, MobileApex 60F, MobileApex 60G, MobileApex 60H). The acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria are focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the MX40 Mobile Digital X-ray System (K181874), rather than proving a specific, quantitative performance metric for a clinical application (like detection of a disease).

The documentation primarily discusses non-clinical performance tests related to electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, radiation protection, software validation, and usability. There is no mention of a clinical study to assess diagnostic performance (e.g., accuracy in detecting specific conditions).

Therefore, the following information is extracted and where information is not provided in the text, it is explicitly stated as "Not provided in the text."

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Digital Radiography System

The acceptance criteria for this device are based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device in terms of intended use, technological characteristics, and safety and effectiveness, primarily through compliance with recognized standards.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample size for test set: Not applicable/Not provided. The summary describes non-clinical engineering and performance testing against standards, not a clinical test set with patient data for diagnostic performance.
• Data provenance: Not applicable/Not provided. The testing described is type testing and verification against standards, not clinical data collection.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. Ground truth in a diagnostic sense (e.g., for disease detection) was not established as part of this submission's described testing, which is focused on technical performance and safety.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. No clinical test set requiring adjudication of ground truth 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. An MRMC study was not done. This device is a mobile X-ray system, not an AI-powered diagnostic software.

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

• Not applicable. This is a hardware device (X-ray system), not a standalone algorithm.

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

• Not applicable for diagnostic performance. For the described non-clinical performance tests (e.g., electrical safety, radiation output), the "ground truth" is defined by the requirements and specifications of the relevant international and FDA performance standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, 21 CFR 1020.30/31).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. This document describes a traditional medical device (X-ray system) and its non-clinical testing, not an AI/ML product that would require a training set.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. (See point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is designed to perform radiographic x-ray examinations on pediatric and adult patient treatment areas.

The Rover product concept was developed under a contract from the Australian Department of Defense to fulfil a need for a full performance digital medical x-ray imager, light enough to be used in deployed medical facilities. Key Design Features: Full trauma imaging capability 40-110kV, 0.2-20mAs; Ultra-light weight at 105 kg; Ground Clearance allows for 75mm step up; Operation on uneven ground; Spare battery tray swap out in under a minute; The unit uses FDA cleared digital image capture panels and software made by FujiFilm OR Varex.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a mobile x-ray system (ROVER) and does not describe acceptance criteria for an AI/ML device or detailed studies proving such a device meets those criteria. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence for a hardware medical device to previously cleared devices.

Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC comparative effectiveness, ground truth type, training set size and ground truth establishment methods) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document as it pertains to an X-ray system, not an AI/ML diagnostic aid.

Here's the information that can be extracted or inferred:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria in terms of diagnostic performance metrics for an AI/ML device. Instead, it relies on regulatory standards and the equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is essentially that it operates properly and produces diagnostic quality images.

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. The document states "Clinical testing was not required to establish substantial equivalence because all digital x-ray receptor panels have had previous FDA clearance." The testing described is bench testing and verification of system operation, not a clinical study with a test set of patient data.

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 no clinical test set requiring expert ground truth was used.

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 device is an X-ray system, not an AI diagnostic aid requiring MRMC studies to assess reader improvement.

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

Not applicable. This is an X-ray system, not an AI algorithm.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical test set requiring ground truth was used. The focus was on engineering verification and compliance with standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no training set mentioned.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

GXR-Series Diagnostic X-Ray System, is a stationary X-ray imaging system, for the purpose of acquiring X-ray images of the desired parts of a patient's anatomy. This device is not intended for mammography or bone density applications.

GXR Series Diagnostic X-ray System is a digital radiographic system. There are 5 power output configurations which are reflected in the model's designation "GXR-XX". The models have 5 different output power ratings: 32kW, 40kW, 52kW, 68kW, 82kW. The subject device, GXR Series Diaqnostic X-ray System, is designed to diagnose the human body by providing radiographic x-ray image with anatomical structure. The subject device has the same x-ray hardware components and image management software as the predicate device. The subject device consists of a high voltage (HV) generator, a tube support unit, an X-ray beam limiting device, a patient table, wall Bucky stand, and an x-ray tube, that operates on a high-frequency inverter method. The operator control console is designed to be user-friendly, and the user can select or change x-ray parameters easily using a large graphic LCD panel display and a soft membrane switch. The GXR Series high frequency X-ray generator (manufactured by DRGEM) features accuracy, reproducibility and long-term stability with capacitor assisted general line power supply. The APR (Anatomical Programming) and the optional AEC (Automatic Exposure Control) features gives the user control of exposure factors, automatically optimized for the radiological study selected. The digital flat panel detectors provide spatial resolution, MTF, DQE and stability based on fine pixel pitch. Selection of an anatomical study on the imaging software automatically sets up the x-ray generator's pre-programmed exposure technique setting and post image processing for selected study. The subject device is able to use a total of 10 different digital detectors, (8 new plus 2 cleared in the predicate, which have been previously cleared by the 510(k) process. The GXR Series Diagnostic X-ray System consists of a combination of an x-ray generator. and associated equipment such as tube stand, patient table, and, digital imaging system. The main power cabinet contains the HT tank and control circuits, the filament drivers, the low speed starter, and interface connections to the room equipment. Tube stand and patient table allows the operator to position the patient. Full Featured Imaging Software & Digital Image Processing. Control console. The image manaqement software, RADMAX Digital Imaging Software (K182537) by DRGEM, is used in both the predicate and subject device to serve as a convenient interface to the hardware and images. Anatomical view-based digital image processing automatically optimizes and enhances the quality of the captured images. RADMAX (K182537) Digital Imaging Software is designed for acquiring images and processing the acquired images. The software can be used together with a digital X-ray detector and or an X-Ray generator. The main features of the RADMAX software are controlling and interfacing the detector, acquiring images after X-ray, storing acquired images, managing data, and image processing. It can also perform system control such as the collimation size, and filter selection.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "GXR-Series Diagnostic X-Ray System." This submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not to evaluate the performance of an AI algorithm with specific acceptance criteria that are typically statistical (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).

Therefore, based on the provided document, I cannot fulfill your request for:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (related to AI algorithm statistical performance).
• Sample size used for the test set and data provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications.
• Adjudication method.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done.
• The type of ground truth used.
• The sample size for the training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established.

The document focuses on the device itself (an X-ray system), not an AI algorithm for image analysis. The "Performance Data" section describes nonclinical testing for general safety and effectiveness of the X-ray system as a whole, ensuring it meets standards for medical electrical equipment, radiation protection, and software lifecycle, and performs comparably to the predicate device. The only "difference" highlighted is the ability to interface with additional previously cleared digital flat panel detectors.

Ask a specific question about this device

DIAMOND-5A/6A/8A, is a stationary digital diagnostic x-ray system that is indicated for use in generating radiographic images of human anatomy. This device is not intended for mammography, bone density, fluoroscopy and angiography applications.

DIAMOND-5A/6A/8A, system is a digital radiographic system. There are 3 power output configurations which are reflected in the model designation "5A/6A/8A". The models have 3 different output power ratings: 52kW, 68kW, 82kW. DIAMOND 5A/6A/8A, incorporates digital flat panel detector technology, along with an automatic motorized U-arm radiographic stand and mobile patient table that can fit into smaller rooms without the need of ceiling support structures for X-Ray tube suspensions. The subject device comes in 2 hardware configurations; a Radiographic Stand configuration for a wired detector and a Radiographic Stand for removable detectors. The main components of the subject device are the same as the predicate. Components of the x-ray source are the tube assembly, motorized x-ray collimator, HV cable assembly and high frequency x-ray generator. A touch screen LCD based x-ray control console provides a user interface and technique selection. The automatic collimator supports high accuracy for selected x-ray field size over SID. Selection of an anatomical study on the imaging software automatically sets up the x-ray generator's pre-programmed exposure technique setting, motorized radiographic stand positioning, x-ray collimation and post image processing for selected study. Also, removable high-resolution grids which have 100 and 180cm (40 and 72 inch) focal distance. The integrated touch screen console located on the tube side, operator can easily control the radiographic techniques and stand positioning. Furthermore, the operator can verify the digital x-ray image on this screen. The GUI, automatically rotates corresponds to rotation angle of U-arm.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the DRGEM Corporation's DIAMOND-5A/6A/8A stationary digital diagnostic x-ray system. This summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study of the device's diagnostic performance for measuring accuracy against a ground truth.

Therefore, much of the requested information (e.g., acceptance criteria for diagnostic capability, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth types for diagnostic accuracy) is not available in this document. The document primarily addresses the safety and performance of the hardware components and software in comparison to a previously cleared device.

Here's the information that can be extracted from the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as pertains to safety and technical function):

Detailed Study Information (as requested, with notes on unavailability):

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable/available. The document describes non-clinical testing for safety and functionality, not a clinical study on diagnostic accuracy.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable/available. No clinical test set requiring expert ground truth for diagnostic accuracy is described.

3. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable/available.

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: Not applicable/available. This device is a digital X-ray system, not an AI-powered diagnostic aide for human readers.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable/available. This refers to the performance of the X-ray system itself. The document states "The complete system has been assessed and tested at the factory and by Standards testing facilities. DIAMOND-5A/6A/8A, has passed all predetermined testing criteria." This indicates standalone testing for the system's technical function and safety.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable/available for diagnostic accuracy. For safety and performance testing, the "ground truth" would be adherence to the cited international standards and predetermined testing criteria.

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable/available. The device is not an AI algorithm that requires a training set in the conventional sense for diagnostic tasks. Its software (RADMAX) is for image management and system control.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable/available.

Summary of the Study (as described in the document):

The "study" described in the 510(k) summary is a non-clinical performance and safety assessment comparing the DIAMOND-5A/6A/8A system to its predicate device (also DIAMOND-5A/6A/8A, K192453). The primary purpose was to demonstrate that adding new digital flat panel detectors (Fujifilm, Varex, i-Ray models) and an updated version of the RADMAX image management software (version 1.01) did not negatively impact safety or efficacy and did not raise new safety risks.

The testing involved assessing the complete system's adherence to various international standards for medical electrical equipment, radiation protection, usability, software lifecycle processes, and risk management. The conclusion was that the device met all predetermined testing criteria and demonstrated a safe and effective profile similar to the predicate device. No clinical (diagnostic accuracy) studies are reported in this summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TOPAZ Mobile DR System, is a mobile X-ray imaging system, for the purpose of acquiring X-ray images of the desired parts of a patient's anatomy.

This device is not intended for mammography, bone density, fluoroscopy and angiography applications.

The TOPAZ Mobile DR System, (TOPAZ), is a mobile x-ray system and is a modification of the predicate device. There are 2 models for TOPAZ: TOPAZ-32D (32KW) and TOPAZ-40D (40KW). TOPAZ, may be moved quietly and smoothly with a motor drive mechanism.

The core part of x-ray source is a tube assembly, motorized x-ray collimator, HV cable assembly and high frequency x-ray generator. A touch screen LCD based x-ray control console provides a user-friendly interface and technique selection. The Collimator supports high accuracy for selected x-ray field size over any SID. Selection of an anatomical study on the imaging software automatically sets up the x-ray generator's pre-programmed exposure technique.

The X-ray passing through a patient's body is sent to the detector and then converted into electrical signals. These signals go through the process of amplification and digital data conversion in the signal process on the workstation and saved in a DICOM file for review on the device or on a Picture Archiving & Communication System (PACS) workstation.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the DRGEM TOPAZ Mobile DR System. It discusses the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain any information about a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria related to a human-in-the-loop or standalone AI performance study.

The "PERFORMANCE DATA" section explicitly states that "Nonclinical testing results are provided in the 510(k). Validation testing indicated that as required by the risk analysis, designated individuals performed all verification and validation activities and that the results demonstrated that the predetermined acceptance criteria were met." This refers to engineering and safety testing against recognized standards (e.g., IEC 60601-2-54, ANSI AAMI ES60601-1, IEC 62304 for software), not clinical performance studies involving AI or human readers.

The key information missing to answer your request is data from a clinical performance study (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, reader study results). The device described is a mobile X-ray imaging system, which captures images. There is no mention of any integrated AI component that would require an AI-specific performance study with acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer most of your questions as the necessary information is not present in the provided document.

Here's what can be inferred or stated based on the provided text, and what cannot:

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

Cannot populate. The document focuses on regulatory compliance and engineering standards for the X-ray system itself, not diagnostic performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) for an AI component. The "acceptance criteria" mentioned are for non-clinical engineering and safety tests, not clinical performance.

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/Not mentioned for clinical performance. The "test set" referenced in the document pertains to engineering validation and verification tests of the X-ray system's functions, not a clinical data set for evaluating diagnostic performance of an AI.

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/Not mentioned. Ground truth establishment by experts (e.g., radiologists) is relevant for diagnostic performance studies. This document reports on non-clinical engineering tests.

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

Not applicable/Not mentioned. Adjudication methods are used in reader studies or for ground truth establishment in clinical performance. This document does not describe such studies.

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. The document does not describe any MRMC study.

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

No. The document does not describe any standalone algorithm performance testing related to diagnostic accuracy.

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

Not applicable/Not mentioned for clinical performance. For engineering tests, the "ground truth" would be the successful operation of the device according to its specifications and regulatory standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable/Not mentioned. This information would be relevant for an AI device. The document describes an X-ray imaging system, not an AI.

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

Not applicable/Not mentioned. This information would be relevant for an AI device. The document describes an X-ray imaging system, not an AI.

Summary of the Device and its Testing as per the document:

The TOPAZ Mobile DR System is a mobile X-ray imaging system. The 510(k) submission primarily focuses on demonstrating its substantial equivalence to an existing predicate device (K183292, also a TOPAZ Mobile DR System from DRGEM). The main difference for this new 510(k) (K201124) is the addition of five previously cleared digital X-ray detectors to the TOPAZ system.

The "Performance Data" section details that the system underwent non-clinical testing against various recognized international and national standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series for medical electrical equipment safety, radiation protection, usability; IEC 62304 for medical device software; DICOM standards, JPEG standards, etc.). The acceptance criteria for these tests were met, demonstrating the device's safety and effectiveness as an X-ray imaging system, and its performance as well as the predicate device. This refers to the engineering and regulatory compliance of the hardware and integrated software for image acquisition and handling, not the diagnostic interpretation or AI assistance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TOPAZ Mobile DR System, is a mobile X-ray imaging system, for the purpose of acquiring X-ray images of the desired parts of a patient's anatomy.

This device is not intended for mammography, bone density, fluoroscopy and angiography applications.

The TOPAZ Mobile DR System. (TOPAZ), is a mobile x-ray system. There are 2 models for TOPAZ: TOPAZ-32D (32KW) and TOPAZ-40D (40KW). TOPAZ, may be moved quietly and smoothly with a motor drive mechanism.

The core part of x-ray source is a tube assembly, motorized x-ray collimator, HV cable assembly and high frequency x-ray generator. A touch screen LCD based x-ray control console provides a user-friendly interface and technique selection. The Collimator supports high accuracy for selected x-ray field size over any SID. Selection of an anatomical study on the imaging software automatically sets up the x-ray generator's pre-programmed exposure technique. Direct radiography via a flat panel detector improves workflow, exam speed and user comfort with efficiency. Digital flat panel detector with Csl screen provides good spatial resolution, MTF, DQE and stability based on a fine pixel pitch. The digital detector type used in TOPAZ is "VARIAN PacScan4336W" or "VARIAN PacScan4336W_V4 which was cleared as part of the Nexus DR™ Digital X-ray Imaging System (with PaxScan 4336Wv4), K161459.

The X-ray passing through a patient's body is sent to the detector and then converted into electrical signals. These signals go through the process of amplification and digital data conversion in the signal process on the workstation and saved in a DICOM file for review on the device or on a Picture Archiving & Communication System (PACS) workstation Image Management features and functions are:

• ROI: Default 13 ROI support .
• MARK: Unlimited support (User preset support) ●
• Horizontal Flip ●
• Vertical Flip .
• Rotate Clockwise (CW) ●
• . Rotate Counter Clockwise (CCW)
• Inverse (Black or White) .
• . Text Annotation
• Caliper / Ruler: Distance tool
• Angle: Angle measurement tool
• Zoom: Image zoom in/out ●
• . Magnify: Image magnify glass window
• . Pan: Image panning

The provided text does not describe acceptance criteria for a device's performance that is proven by a study. Instead, it is a 510(k) summary for the TOPAZ Mobile DR System, which is a mobile X-ray imaging system. The purpose of this document is to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, meaning it's as safe and effective as a device already on the market.

Therefore, many of the requested points cannot be directly extracted from this document as it focuses on regulatory equivalence rather than specific performance acceptance criteria from a clinical or standalone study.

However, I can extract information related to the non-clinical testing performed to establish safety and effectiveness in comparison to the predicate device.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing the points where information is available:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria for device performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy (e.g., sensitivity, specificity). Instead, it refers to fulfilling predetermined testing criteria based on regulatory standards for X-ray systems.

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in the context of diagnostic performance. The testing mentioned is non-clinical, focusing on compliance with safety and performance standards of the physical device and its software.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. The testing was conducted at the factory and by "Standards testing facilities."

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 this document details non-clinical testing for substantial equivalence, not a study evaluating diagnostic performance against a ground truth.

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

• Not applicable. The "test set" here refers to the system itself being tested against regulatory standards, not image data being adjudicated.

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. A MRMC comparative effectiveness study was explicitly NOT done. The document states: "Clinical testing is not necessary for the TOPAZ Mobile DR system in order to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device." This device is a basic X-ray system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable. This device is an X-ray imaging system, not an algorithm, and its performance is evaluated in the context of its function to acquire images, not analyze them.

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

• Not applicable. For the non-clinical testing, the "ground truth" was the specifications and requirements outlined by the various recognized international and national standards (e.g., IEC, ANSI AAMI, NEMA, ISO).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/algorithmic device.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MasteRad MX30 is intended for use by a qualified/trained doctor or technician on both adult and pediatric subjects for taking diagnostic radiographic exposures of the skull, spinal column, extremities, and other body parts. Applications can be performed with the patient sitting, standing, or lying in the prone or supine position. Not for mammography.

This device represents a new combination of already cleared solid state digital x-ray acquisition panels (plus one NEW panel) and software with the diagnostic x-ray compnents required to make a complete system. The purchaser may select their digital panel from this list: Varex PaxScan 2530Wv4, Varex PaxScan 4336Wv4, Varex PaxScan 4343R, Varex PaxScan 4343RC, Varex XRpad 4343F, Varex XRpad 3025, Varex XRpad 4336, Toshiba* FDXA4343R. As compared to our predicate system, the tube stand is floor mounted instead of ceiling mounted. The collimator is different. Instead of the Ralco collimator, a Collimare model is supplied. The purchaser selects one of the following FDA certified models: CML-150-0001-C; CTL-150-0001-C; CML-125-0001-C. The x-ray tube and the high voltage generator remains the same as our predicate. The x-ray tube is a Toshiba model and the generator is the CPI CMP 200DR. The image acquisition software is a newer version of our Voyance software originally cleared in K130377.

The MasteRad MX30 is an X-ray system, and the provided text describes its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K143257). The acceptance criteria and supporting studies are based on demonstrating that the new device, particularly a new digital X-ray receptor panel, maintains diagnostic quality and safety.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to demonstrating that the new Toshiba FDXA4343R digital panel (and the overall MasteRad MX30 system) performs at least as well as, or equivalently to, the predicate device and the previously cleared Toshiba FDX4343R panel. The primary performance criterion is diagnostic quality of images.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify a numerical sample size for the clinical images beyond stating "Clinical images were acquired from the new Toshiba panel." It implies a sufficient number were obtained for review, but no specific count is given.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It indicates the images were "acquired from the new Toshiba panel" for the purpose of this submission, which suggests a prospective acquisition for evaluation, specifically for a new panel not previously cleared by the FDA.

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

• Number of Experts: One expert.
• Qualifications: "A board certified radiologist." No specific years of experience are mentioned.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable/None explicitly stated as an adjudication method. The evaluation was performed by a single board-certified radiologist who "reviewed" the images and "found them to be of excellent diagnostic quality." There is no mention of multiple reviewers or a consensus process.

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

• MRMC Study: No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed.
• AI Improvement Effect Size: Not applicable. This submission is for an X-ray system and its digital detector, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool for interpretation.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not applicable. This device is an X-ray acquisition system, not a standalone algorithm. The "performance" described relates to the imaging capabilities of the hardware component (the digital detector) rather than an interpretive algorithm.

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

• Ground Truth Type: Expert opinion/evaluation. The ground truth for image quality was established by a single board-certified radiologist's assessment of "diagnostic quality." This is based on the expert's interpretation of whether the images are suitable for clinical diagnosis.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. The document describes the validation of a hardware system and its updated software, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

• Training Set Ground Truth Establishment: Not applicable, as there was no training set for a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device

ProRad Series Stationary Radiographic System is intended for use by a qualified, trained doctor or technician on both adult and paediatric subjects for taking diagnostic radiographic exposures of the skull, spinal column, chest, abdomen, extremities, and other body parts. Applications can be performed with the patient sitting, standing, or lying in the prone or supine position. Not for mammography.

The ProRad series Stationary Radiographic System is a diagnostic x-ray system intended for general purpose radiographic imaging of the human body. There are two types of configurations (2FC and 3NC) for ProRad; the difference is in the mounting of the X-ray tube. For X-ray tube mounting the configuration is either the floor mounted (2FC) or ceiling suspension (3NC) assembly.

The devices are a new combination of a previously cleared solid state digital x-ray acquisition panel and software with the diagnostic x-ray components (including Xray tube, high frequency X-ray generator, a tilting vertical bucky, X-ray table and collimator) required to make a complete system. The purchaser may select any of the digital panels and software based on the user's requirements. The other components are also available in different configurations to meet specific customer needs. The X-ray panel and imaging software have been previously cleared by the FDA, and most of the other components are used in previously cleared 510(k) devices.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information for the ProRad 2FC and ProRad 3NC Digital Stationary Radiographic Systems, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Table:

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than setting and reporting specific performance metrics with acceptance criteria in a comparative table for novel device features. The "Comparable Properties" table (pages 6-8) is used to show alignment with predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" for a dedicated algorithm performance study. Instead, compliance is demonstrated through testing of the integrated system and reliance on previous FDA clearances for individual components.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of an algorithm performance test set. The clinical images reviewed by a radiologist were "acquired by the device," but the origin (e.g., country, prospective/retrospective status) is not specified.

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

• Number of Experts: One radiologist.
• Qualifications of Experts: Only "a radiologist" is mentioned. Specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, board certification) are not detailed.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Adjudication method: Not applicable. The radiologist's review was a single assessment, not a consensus or adjudication process among multiple readers.

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:

• MRMC Study: No. The document explicitly states: "Since the digital x-ray panels and software have previously received FDA clearance, a clinical study was not required as per the FDA guidance document." The clinical image review was supplementary.
• Effect size of human reader improvement with AI: Not applicable, as no MRMC study or AI assistance evaluation was conducted. The device is an imaging system, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• Standalone Performance Study: No. This device is a diagnostic X-ray system, which intrinsically requires a human (a qualified doctor or technician) in the loop for operation and interpretation. The performance of individual cleared components (digital panels, software) was relied upon.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: For the supplementary review, the "ground truth" was the radiologist's assessment that the images were "acceptable and allowed the radiologist to make an accurate diagnosis." This is a form of expert opinion on image quality and diagnostic utility, rather than an objective "truth" like pathology or outcomes.

7. The sample size for the training set:

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. This document does not describe a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set. The device is a conventional X-ray system composed of cleared components.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as there is no machine learning algorithm described.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended for use by a qualified/trained doctor or technician on both adult and pediatric subjects for taking diagnostic radiographic exposures of the skull, spinal column, extremities, and other body parts. Applications can be performed with the patient sitting, standing, or lying in the prone or supine position. Not for mammography.

The MX40 is comprised of a High Voltage Generator with a maximum power output of 50 kW, the MX40 can meet different exposure needs for varying positions and body mass. With the MX40's state-of-the-art design and powerful 50 kW generator coupled with the Varex PaxScan digital flat panel image receptor and E-COM Digital Radiography Operator Console (used on previously cleared devices K130883 and K143232), users can obtain clearer images quickly and easily. Our latest mobile X-ray system is based on the revolutionary MX family.

The provided text describes the MX40 Mobile Digital X-ray System and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the RadPRO Mobile 40KW. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria for device performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy or a clinical study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria related to its diagnostic output.

Instead, the document focuses on:

• Regulatory Clearance: A 510(k) premarket notification for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.
• Device Description: Details about the MX40's components and features.
• Comparison to Predicate Device: A table detailing the technological and functional characteristics of the MX40 compared to the RadPRO Mobile 40KW.
• Non-Clinical Performance Testing: A list of international and FDA standards with which the device complies.
• Conclusion: The device is considered substantially equivalent to the predicate based on non-clinical tests and the use of previously cleared digital image panels and acquisition software.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance and a clinical study are not available in the provided text.

Here's a summary of what can be extracted:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (based on regulatory substantial equivalence)

The acceptance criteria are implied by demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device, the RadPRO Mobile 40KW (K161345). The device is deemed to meet these criteria by complying with relevant medical device standards and having comparable technical specifications.

Deviations/Improvements over Predicate:

• Generator Power Level: MX40: 50KW vs. Predicate: 40 KW
• mA Range: MX40: 10 - 630 mA vs. Predicate: 10 - 500 mA
• Exposure Time Range: MX40: 0.001 – 6.3 sec vs. Predicate: 0.001 - 10 sec
• mAs Range: MX40: 0.1 – 320 mAs vs. Predicate: 0.1 - 500 mAs
• X-Ray Tube: MX40: Toshiba E7843X vs. Predicate: (not specified, but implies a difference)
• Nominal Anode Input Power: MX40: Large Focus 50kW @ 6Hz, Small focus 22kW @ 60Hz vs. Predicate: (not specified)
• Imaging Panel: MX40 uses Varian 4336R, PAXSCAN 4336W (previously cleared K161459) vs. Predicate using Canon CXDI series (K133693, K131106). Both are previously cleared digital panels.
• Generator Type: MX40: Shenzhen Browiner vs. Predicate: Sedecal
• Collimator Model: MX40: Shenzhen Browiner Tech Co., Ltd Or Huestis 150MC vs. Predicate: Ralco R221 DHHS Manual Collimator

Regarding a study to prove the device meets acceptance criteria:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The submission is a 510(k) for substantial equivalence based on non-clinical performance and a comparison of technical specifications, not a clinical study on diagnostic performance.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No ground truth was established from expert readings for a diagnostic performance study.
3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. No test set requiring adjudication was used for diagnostic performance.
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: Not applicable. This device is an X-ray system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.
5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This device is an X-ray system, not an algorithm.
6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this 510(k) clearance is the demonstrated compliance with engineering standards and performance characteristics of the device itself and its components, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device is an X-ray system, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Summary of Non-Clinical Performance Testing:
The device undergone non-clinical performance testing for compliance with various international and FDA standards, including:

• ISO14971 (Risk Management)
• IEC60601-1 (Basic Safety and Essential Performance)
• IEC60601-1-2 (Electromagnetic Compatibility)
• EN 55032, EN 55024 (Electromagnetic Compatibility)
• IEC60601-1-3 (Radiation Protection)
• EN60601-1-6 (Usability)
• IEC60601-2-54 (X-Ray Equipment Specific Requirements)
• IEC62304 (Software Life-cycle Processes)
• ISO13485 (Quality Management)
• 21CFR 1020.30 (Diagnostic X-Ray systems and their major components)
• 21CFR 1020.31 (Radiographic equipment)

The submission leverages previous clearances for the digital image panel (K161459) and the image acquisition software (K130883 and K143232) to support the substantial equivalence claim.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MobileDiagnost M50 is a mobile radiographic system used for general X-ray imaging. This system can be used for taking x-ray images of patients who can't be moved to a fixed system. Applications include examinations of chest, upper and lower extremities, spinal column, skull radiography and abdominal cavities. MobileDiagnost M50 is not suitable for Mammography.

The MobileDiagnost M50 is a digital mobile X-ray system, used to perform X-ray examinations in different locations of a hospital, particularly for the patient who cannot be transferred to a fixed X-ray room. The MobileDiagnost M50 allows the user to take X-rays on a digital wireless detector and the image can then be viewed on the Eleva Workspot. The MobileDiagnost M50 consists of a mobile base unit and a user interface combined with a flat solid state X-ray detector. It is used by the operator to generate, process and handle digital X-ray images.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Philips MobileDiagnost M50. It does not describe a study involving an AI/Machine Learning device, but rather a mobile x-ray system. The basis of the submission is demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance testing and technical comparisons, rather than a clinical effectiveness study of an AI algorithm improving human performance.

Therefore, many of the requested criteria related to AI/ML device studies (such as MRMC studies, ground truth establishment, sample sizes for training/test sets for AI, expert consensus, etc.) are not applicable to this document.

However, I can extract information regarding the device's technical specifications and the non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, which serve as its "acceptance criteria" and "proof" in the context of this 510(k) submission for substantial equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document, with explanations for what is not applicable:

Device: MobileDiagnost M50 (Mobile X-ray System)

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

In the context of this 510(k), acceptance criteria are primarily compliance with recognized standards and demonstration of comparable performance to the predicate device through technical specifications and non-clinical testing. The "reported device performance" is the MobileDiagnost M50's specifications and its compliance with the standards.

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

• Not Applicable: This is a submission for an X-ray system, not an AI/ML device that requires a "test set" of images for AI performance evaluation. The "testing" referred to is non-clinical verification and validation against engineering specifications and regulatory standards. The documentation does not detail specific sample sizes of patients/images for performance testing, as it's not a clinical efficacy study.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of image data for an AI model.

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

• Not Applicable: No "ground truth" establishment by experts on a test set of images is mentioned as this is not an AI/ML device. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is compliance with established engineering and safety standards.

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

• Not Applicable: No clinical test set requiring 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: This is a mobile X-ray hardware system, not an AI assistance tool. No MRMC study was performed or required. The document explicitly states: "The MobileDiagnost M50 did not require a clinical study since substantial equivalence to the currently marketed and predicate MobileDiagnost wDR 2.0 was demonstrated with the following attributes: Design features; Indication for use; Fundamental scientific technology; Non-clinical performance testing including validation; and Safety and effectiveness."

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

• Not Applicable: This is not an algorithm/AI device.

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

• Not Applicable: No clinical ground truth was established from patient data. The "ground truth" for clearance is the device's adherence to technical performance specifications and safety standards as demonstrated through non-clinical testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI/ML device. No training set for an algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable: This is not an AI/ML device. No training set or ground truth for it.

Summary of Acceptance/Proof for this Device:

The "acceptance criteria" for the Philips MobileDiagnost M50, as presented in this 510(k) summary, revolve around:

1. Compliance with recognized electrical, radiation safety, usability, and quality management standards. This is demonstrated through non-clinical verification and validation tests.
2. Demonstration of "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device (MobileDiagnost wDR 2.0 - K141895). This is proven by showing that any differences in design features or fundamental scientific technology do not impact the safety or effectiveness of the device. Where components differ (e.g., the detector's scintillator), justification is provided by referencing other predicate/cleared devices that use the same component and have already demonstrated safety and effectiveness (e.g., Varian PaxScan 4336Wv4 detector, K161459).

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" is the comprehensive set of non-clinical verification and validation tests performed to ensure compliance with the listed international and FDA-recognized consensus standards and internal design requirements. The results of these tests are stated to have demonstrated that the device "met the acceptance criteria and is adequate for its intended use."

Ask a specific question about this device