Search Results

Resona A10S, Resona A20 Pro, Resona A20S, Resona A20W, Resona A20, Resona A20, Resona A20 Premium, Resona A20 Elite, Resona A20 Plus, Resona A MV, Eagus A20W, Eagus A20 Diagnostic Ultrasound System is applicable for adults, pregnant women, pediatric patients and neonates. It is intended for use in Ophthalmic, fetal, abdominal, pediatric, small organ(breast, thyroid, testes), neonatal and adult cephalic, trans-rectal, trans-vaginal, musculo-skeletal(conventional, superficial), GYN/Pelvic, urology, adult and pediatric cardiac, and peripheral vessel exams.

This device is a general purpose diagnostic ultrasound system intended for use by qualified and trained healthcare professionals for ultrasound imaging, measurement, display and analysis of the human body and fluid, which is intended to be used in a hospital or medical clinic.

Modes of operation include: B, M, PWD, CWD, Color Doppler, Combined mode(B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, iScape View, Color M, TDI, V Flow, Smart 3D, 4D(Real-time 3D), Strain Elastography, STE, STQ, Contrast agent for LVO), Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

The Resona A10S, Resona A20 Pro, Resona A20T, Resona A20S, Resona A20W, Resona A20, Resona A20 Exp, Resona A20 Premium, Resona A20 Elite, Resona A20 Plus, Resona A Elite, Resona A MV, Eagus A20W, Eagus A20 Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a general purpose, mobile, software controlled, ultrasonic diagnostic system. Its function is to acquire and display ultrasound images in Modes of operation include: B, M, PWD, CWD, Color Doppler, Power Doppler, mode(B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, Combined PW+Color+B. Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, iScape View, Color M, TDI, V Flow, Smart 3D, 4D(Real-time 3D), Strain Elastography, STE, STO, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO), Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

The Resona A10S, Resona A20 Pro, Resona A20T, Resona A20S, Resona A20W, Resona A20, Resona A20 Exp. Resona A20 Premium, Resona A20 Elite, Resona A20 Plus, Resona A Elite, Resona A MV, Eagus A20W, Eagus A20 Diagnostic Ultrasound System can also measure anatomical structures and offer analysis packages to provide information based on which the competent health care professionals can make the diagnosis.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for a diagnostic ultrasound system. It outlines the device description, indications for use, comparison to predicate devices, and the non-clinical tests performed. Crucially, the document states "Not applicable" for clinical studies and explicitly says, "The subject of this submission... does not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

Therefore, based on the provided text, there is no information available regarding acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of an "AI" or "software" performance evaluation as typically seen for AI/ML-enabled devices. The new features mentioned (e.g., Super Resolution CEUS, Smart Scene) are presented as improvements or enhancements based on cleared functions, or new options that passed related tests without introducing new clinical risks. The focus of this 510(k) is on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate ultrasound devices through non-clinical testing and shared technological characteristics.

Here's why the requested information cannot be provided from this document:

• No AI/ML Performance Claim: The document does not describe the device as an AI/ML-enabled diagnostic tool in the sense of providing automated analysis, detection, or diagnosis that would require specific performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC based on ground truth. The "Smart Calc" feature mentioned is simply an analysis package.
• Focus on Substantial Equivalence: The primary goal of this 510(k) is to demonstrate that the new ultrasound system is substantially equivalent to existing, legally marketed predicate devices primarily through engineering, safety, and functionality comparisons.
• No Clinical Study Performed/Required: The document explicitly states that clinical studies were "Not applicable" and "not required to support substantial equivalence." This means there was no de novo performance study with a test set, ground truth, or expert readers to evaluate specific diagnostic accuracy or AI assistance.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferable from the document's scope):

Regarding the specific questions about an AI/ML performance study, the answers are "N/A" (Not Applicable) because such a study was not performed or required for this 510(k) clearance:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: See table above for inferable, non-AI criteria.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: N/A (no clinical test set for AI performance).
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: N/A.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: N/A.
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 for AI assistance was performed.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: No standalone algorithm performance study was performed.
7. The type of ground truth used: N/A.
8. The sample size for the training set: N/A (no mention of a training set for an AI model).
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: N/A.

Ask a specific question about this device

Resona 19/Resona 19 Exp/Resona I9T/Resona 19 Easi/Resona 19 Nasa/Resona IV/Imagyn 19/Imagyn 19/Imagyn 19S/ Imagyn 19 Easi/Nuewa 19/Nuewa 19T/Nuewa 19 Exp/Nuewa 19 Easi/Anesus 19/Anesus 19 Easi/Eagus 19 Diagnostic Ultrasound System is applicable for adults, pregnant women, pediatric patients and neonates. It is intended for use in fetal, abdominal, pediatric, small organ (breast, thyroid, testes), neonatal and adult cephalic, transvaginal, musculo-skeletal (conventional, superficial), adult and pediatric cardiac, trans-esoph. (Cardiac), peripheral vessel, urology and Thoracic/Pleural exams.

Modes of operation include: B, M, PWD, CWD, Color Doppler, Combined mode(B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, Smart3D, 4D(Reape View, TDI, Color M, Strain Elastography, Contrast agent for LVO), V Flow, STE, STQ, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

The Resona I9, Resona I9 Exp, Resona I9S, Resona I9T, Resona I9 Easi, Resona I9 Nasa, Resona IV, Imagyn I9, Imagyn I9S, Imagyn I9 Easi, Nuewa I9, Nuewa I9S, Nuewa I9T, Nuewa I9 Exp. Nuewa I9 Easi. Anesus I9, Anesus I9 Easi. Eagus I9 Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a general purpose, mobile, software controlled, ultrasonic diagnostic system. Its function is to acquire and display ultrasound images in Modes of operation include: B, M, PWD, CWD , Color Doppler, Amplitude Doppler, Combined mode(B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, Smart3D, 4D(Real-time 3D), iScape View, TDI, Color M, Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO), V Flow, STE, STO, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

The Resona I9, Resona I9 Exp. Resona I9S, Resona I9T, Resona I9 Easi, Resona 19 Nasa, Resona IV, Imagyn 19, Imagyn 19S, Imagyn 19 Easi, Nuewa 19, Nuewa I9S, Nuewa I9T, Nuewa I9 Exp, Nuewa I9 Easi, Anesus I9, Anesus I9 Easi, Eagus I9 Diagnostic Ultrasound System can also measure anatomical structures and offer analysis packages to provide information based on which the competent health care professionals can make the diagnosis.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Resona I9 series Diagnostic Ultrasound System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, primarily through non-clinical testing and comparison of features. It explicitly states that clinical studies were not required or performed for this submission.

Therefore, many of the requested elements regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets these criteria (especially those related to AI performance, human reader improvement, and ground truth establishment) cannot be found in this document. The device described is a general-purpose diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, which further explains the absence of such information.

However, I can extract the general acceptance criteria for this type of device based on the non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Here's a breakdown of the information available and the parts that are explicitly stated as "Not Applicable" or absent:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Since this is a 510(k) for a diagnostic ultrasound system and not an AI-driven device with specific performance metrics like sensitivity/specificity, the acceptance criteria are related to safety, electrical performance, acoustic output, and compatibility. The "reported device performance" is the manufacturer's claim that the device passed these tests and conforms to the standards.

While there isn't a table of specific numerical performance criteria (e.g., minimum diagnostic accuracy), the general acceptance is based on conformity to recognized medical device standards and comparability to predicate devices.

Study Details (Based on the Provided Document)

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

   • Not Applicable / Not Provided. The document states "Non-clinical Tests" were performed, but does not provide details on specific sample sizes for these tests (e.g., how many transducers were tested for acoustic output, or how many materials for biocompatibility). The document describes the system and its features, not a clinical trial or performance study based on patient data.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified, as it's not a clinical data study. Non-clinical tests are typically performed in a lab setting by the manufacturer.

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

   • Not Applicable. As this is a 510(k) based on non-clinical testing and comparison to a predicate device, there is no mention of expert-established ground truth for a test set in the context of diagnostic accuracy.

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

   • Not Applicable. No clinical test set with human assessment and adjudication is mentioned.

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. The document explicitly states: "Clinical Studies: Not applicable. The subject of this submission... does not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." This device is a diagnostic ultrasound system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically undergo MRMC studies for AI performance improvement.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a diagnostic ultrasound imaging system, not a standalone AI algorithm. While it mentions "new software and hardware options" and features like "Smart Scene 3D" or "High frame rate STE," these are described as "improvements or enhancement based on the cleared functions to facilitate users," implying integrated features within the ultrasound system, not a separate AI algorithm requiring standalone performance validation against a ground truth. None of these features are presented as standalone diagnostic algorithms.

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

   • Not Applicable. For the non-clinical tests, "ground truth" would be the established scientific/engineering standard for a given test (e.g., a calibrated device for acoustic output measurements, or a specified biochemical reaction for biocompatibility). There is no clinical ground truth (like pathology or outcomes data) mentioned, as no clinical studies were performed.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable. The document does not discuss a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

   • Not Applicable. No training set is mentioned in the context of machine learning.

In summary, the provided 510(k) document is for a general diagnostic ultrasound system and asserts substantial equivalence via non-clinical testing and comparison to predicate devices, not through clinical performance studies involving a test set, expert readers, or AI algorithm validation against ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

Resona R9/Resona R9 Exp/Resona R9S/Nuewa R9/Nuewa R9/Nuewa R9 Pro/Nuewa R9 Pro/Nuewa R9S/Resona 7/ Resona 7CV/Resona 7EXP/Resona 70B/Resona 7PRO/Imagyn 7/Resona Y Diagnostic Ultrasound System is applicable for adults, pregnant woments and neonates. If is intended for use in fetal, abdominal. Intraoperative, pediatic, small organ(breast, thyroid, testes), neonatal and adult cephalic, trans-rectal, musculoskeletal(conventional, superficial), adult and pediatic cardiac, trans-esoph. (Cardiac), peripheral vessel, urology exams.

This device is a general purpose diamostic ultrasound system intended for use by qualified and trained healtheare professionals for ultrasound imaging, measurement, display and analysis of the human body and fluid, which is intended to be used in a hospital or medical clinic.

Modes of operation include: B, M, PWD, Color Doppler, Amplitude Doppler, Combined mode(B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, Smart 3D, 4D(Real-time 3D), iScape View, TDI, Color M, Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO), V Flow, STE, STQ, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

The Resona R9, Resona R9 Exp, Resona R9 Pro, Resona R9S, Nuewa R9, Nuewa R9 Exp, Nuewa R9 Pro, Nuewa R9S, Resona 7, Resona 7CV, Resona 7EXP, Resona 7S, Resona 70B, Resona 7PRO, Imagyn 7, Resona Y Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a general purpose, mobile, software controlled, ultrasonic diagnostic system.

This system is a Track 3 device that employs an array of probes that include linear array, Phased array, pencil phased and convex array.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a Diagnostic Ultrasound System. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than presenting detailed acceptance criteria and performance data for a new AI/CADe device. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, and performance metrics (especially for AI/CADe tools) is not present in this document.

However, I can extract information related to the device's broader regulatory and non-clinical testing.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not explicitly stated in the document as a set of quantified acceptance criteria and corresponding performance metrics for a specific function or feature. The document extensively compares the device to predicate devices and lists various non-clinical tests performed, implying that meeting standards is the "acceptance criteria."

However, I can infer the "acceptance criteria" based on the listed non-clinical tests and the "performance" as compliance with these standards and equivalence to predicate devices.

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

Not applicable/Not provided. This document does not describe a clinical study with a test set of patient data. The evaluation is based on non-clinical engineering and performance testing against recognized standards and comparison to predicate devices.

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

Not applicable/Not provided. No human expert ground truth was established for a test set, as no clinical study is presented.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable/Not provided. No test set or ground truth was established that would require adjudication.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable/Not provided. This document explicitly states: "Not applicable. The subject of this submission... does not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." (Page 11). Therefore, no MRMC study was conducted or reported. The device is a diagnostic ultrasound system, not specifically an AI/CADe tool for interpretation.

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

Not applicable/Not provided. The document does not describe a standalone algorithm performance evaluation. Some features listed (e.g., Smart V Trace, Smart ICV, AutoEF, Smart Fetal HR, Smart Caliper, Smart Trace) imply quantitative analysis capabilities, but no performance metrics for these "smart" features are provided in a standalone context. These are likely integrated functions within the ultrasound system, not standalone AI algorithms intended for independent evaluation.

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

Not applicable/Not provided. For the non-clinical tests conducted, the "ground truth" would be the specifications and requirements of the referenced standards (e.g., NEMA UD 2, IEC 60601 series, ISO 10993-1).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable/Not provided. This document describes a traditional medical device (ultrasound system) and its non-clinical testing for substantial equivalence, not the development or training of an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, no training set information is provided.

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

Not applicable/Not provided. As no training set is discussed, there's no information on how its ground truth might have been established.

Ask a specific question about this device

Vivid E80 / Vivid E90 / Vivid E95 is a general-purpose ultrasound system, specialized for use in cardiac imaging. It is intended for use by, or under the direction of a qualified and trained physician for ultrasound imaging, measurement, display and analysis of the human body and fluid. The device is intended for use in a hospital environment including echo lab, other hospital settings, operating room, Cath lab and EP lab or in private medical offices. The systems support the following clinical applications: Fetal/Obstetrics, Abdominal (including renal, GYN), Pediatric, Small Organ (breast, testes, thyroid), Neonatal Cephalic, Adult Cephalic, Cardiac (adult and pediatric), Peripheral Vasculo-sketal Conventional, Musculo-skeletal Superficial, Urology (including prostate), Transvaginal, Transvaginal, Transrectal, Interventional Guidance (including Biopsy, Vascular Access), and Intraoperative (vascular). Modes of operation include: 3D, Real time (RT) 3D Mode (4D), B, M, PW Doppler, CW Doppler, Color M Doppler, Power Doppler, Harmonic Imaging, Coded Pulse and Combined modes: B/M, B/Color M, B/PWD or CWD, B/Color/PWD or CWD, B/ Power/PWD.

Vivid E80 / Vivid E90 / Vivid E95 is a Track 3, diagnostic ultrasound system, which is primarily intended for cardiac imaging and analysis but also includes vascular and general radiology applications. It is a full featured diagnostic ultrasound system that provides digital acquisition, processing, analysis and display capability. The Vivid E80 / Vivid E90 / Vivid E95 consists of a mobile console with a height-adjustable control panel, color LCD touch panel, OLED or LCD display monitor (alternatives) and optional image storage and printing devices. It includes a variety of electronic array transducers operating in linear, curved, sector/phased array, matrix array or dual array format, including dedicated CW transducers and real time 3D transducer. The system includes electronics for transmit and receive of ultrasound data, ultrasound signal processing, software computing, hardware for Image storage, hard copy printing, and network access to the facility through both LAN and wireless (supported by use of a wireless LAN adapter) connection.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the GE Medical Systems Ultrasound and Primary Care Diagnostics Vivid E80/Vivid E90/Vivid E95 ultrasound systems. It does not contain detailed information about a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria for AI-related features.

The document states:

• "The subject of this premarket submission, Vivid E80 / Vivid E90 / Vivid E95, did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."
• "Summary of Non-Clinical Tests: Vivid E80 / Vivid E90 / Vivid E95 were evaluated for acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning and disinfection effectiveness as well as thermal, electrical, electromagnetic, and mechanical safety, and have been found to comply with applicable medical device safety standards."

While new AI features are mentioned (AI Auto Measure - 2D, AI Auto Measure Spectrum Recognition, AFI 3.0, Auto EF 3.0, AFI RV, AFI LA, 4D Auto TVQ), the document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on safety, technological characteristics, and intended use, rather than presenting a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance metrics for these AI features.

Therefore, most of the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, and adjudication methods for a study proving AI device performance is not available in the provided text.

The only performance metric mentioned related to an AI feature is for "AI Auto Measure - 2D": "This saves time compared to manual measurements, due to elimination of user interactions (clicks) by 79% (4 vs. 19)." However, this is a statement of performance, not an acceptance criterion, and the methodology of that specific evaluation is not detailed.

Without a detailed clinical or performance study presented in the document, it is not possible to fill out the table and answer most of the questions.

However, based on the limited information provided, I can infer the following about what kind of information would be relevant if such a study were present:

Hypothetical Example of Desired Information (Not Found in Document):

If a study were present for the AI Auto Measure - 2D feature, here's what the requested information might look like:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Hypothetical)

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

• Hypothetical: Test Set: 500 cardiac ultrasound studies (images/clips).
• Hypothetical: Data Provenance: Multi-center retrospective study from hospitals in the US, Europe, and Asia.

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

• Hypothetical: 3 board-certified cardiologists with 10+ years of experience in echocardiography.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Hypothetical: 2+1 (two experts independently reviewed cases, and a third expert adjudicated disagreements).

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

• Hypothetical: Yes, an MRMC study was performed comparing human performance with and without AI assistance for tasks involving cardiac structure measurements (e.g., LVEDD, LVESV, EF).
• Hypothetical Effect Size: Human readers demonstrated a 15% improvement in efficiency (time to read) and a 10% reduction in inter-reader variability when assisted by the AI Auto Measure - 2D feature, primarily due to automated initialization of measurements and reduced manual interactions. The diagnostic accuracy (e.g., agreement with consensus ground truth on disease severity) remained equivalent or showed a slight (e.g., 2%) non-significant improvement with AI assistance.

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

• Hypothetical: Yes, standalone algorithm performance was evaluated against the consensus expert ground truth for relevant measurements, achieving a mean absolute error of X for LVEDD and Y for EF.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Hypothetical: Expert consensus measurements by highly experienced cardiologists on the ultrasound images/clips.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Hypothetical: 10,000 cardiac ultrasound studies (images/clips) for AI Auto Measure - 2D.

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

• Hypothetical: Initial ground truth was established by automated scripts based on existing clinical reports and validated by a team of trained sonographers under the supervision of cardiologists. A subset of the training data (e.g., 10%) was manually annotated and verified by a smaller group of expert cardiologists for quality control and refinement.

Ask a specific question about this device

Vivid S60N/Vivid S70N is a general-purpose ultrasound system, specialized for use in cardiac imaging. It is intended for use by, or under the direction of a qualified and trained physician for ultrasound imaging, measurement, display and analysis of the human body and fluid. The device is intended for use in a hospital environment including echo lab, other hospital settings, operating room, Cath lab and EP lab or in private medical offices. The systems support the following clinical applications: Fetal/Obstetrics, Abdominal (including renal, GYN), Pediatric, Small Organ (breast, testes, thyroid), Neonatal Cephalic, Adult Cephalic, Cardiac (adult and pediatric), Peripheral Vascular, Musculo-skeletal Conventional, Musculo-skeletal Superficial, Urology (including prostate), Transvaginal, Transrectal, Intra-cardiac and Intra-luminal, Interventional Guidance (including Biopsy, Vascular Access), and Intraoperative (vascular). Modes of operation include: 3D/4D Imaging mode, B, M, PW Dopler, CW Doppler, Color Doppler, Color M Doppler, Power Doppler, Harmonic Imaging, Coded Pulse and Combined modes: B/M, B/Color M, B/PWD or CWD, B/Color/PWD or CWD, B/Power/PWD.

Vivid S60N / Vivid S70N is a Track 3, diagnostic ultrasound system, which is primarily intended for cardiac imaging and analysis but also includes vascular and general radiology applications. It is a full featured diagnostic ultrasound system that provides digital acquisition, processing, analysis and display capability. The Vivid S60N / Vivid S70N consists of a mobile console with a height-adjustable control panel, color LCD touch panel, LCD display monitor and optional image storage and printing devices. It includes a variety of electronic array transducers operating in linear, curved, sector/phased array, matrix array or dual array format, including dedicated CW transducers and real time 3D transducer. System also can be used with compatible ICE transducers. The system includes electronics for transmit and receive of ultrasound data, ultrasound signal processing, software computing, hardware for Image storage, hard copy printing, and network access to the facility through both LAN and wireless (supported by use of a wireless LAN USB-adapter) connection.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the GE Medical Systems Ultrasound and Primary Care Diagnostics Vivid S60N and Vivid S70N ultrasound systems. It primarily describes the device, its intended use, comparison to predicate devices, and a summary of non-clinical tests to assure safety and compliance with standards.

Specifically, it states: "The subject of this premarket submission, Vivid S60N / Vivid S70N, did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." This means that no new clinical study was conducted or provided to demonstrate the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria. The claim of substantial equivalence is based on the device's similarity to existing, legally marketed predicate devices and compliance with relevant safety and performance standards for non-clinical aspects.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth details, as this information is explicitly stated as not required and thus not present in the provided text for this specific submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

Esaote's Model 6440 is intended to perform diagnostic general ultrasound studies including: Fetal, Abdominal, Intraoperative (Abdominal), Pediatric, Small organs, Neonatal, Neonatal Cephalic, Adult Cephalic, Transvaginal, Musculoskeletal (Conventional), Musculoskeletal (Superficial), Urological, Cardiovascular Pediatric, Transoesophageal (cardiac), Peripheral Vessel.

The 6440 system provides imaging for guidance of biopsy and imaging to assist in the placement of needles and catheters in vascular or other anatomical structures as well as peripheral nerve blocks in Musculoskeletal applications.

The Virtual Navigator software option for Esaote model 6440 is intended to support a radiological clinical ultrasound examination (first modality) and follow percutaneous procedures or surgical operations providing additional image information from a second imaging modality (CT, MR, US, and PET). The second modality provides additional security in assessing the morphology of the real time ultrasound image. Virtual Navigator can be used in the following applications: Abdominal, Gynecological, Musculoskeletal, Obstetrics, Pediatric, Urologic, Small Organs, Intraoperative (Abdominal), Intraoperative (Neurological), Peripheral Vascular and Transcranial for radiological examinations only.

The second modality image is not intended to be used as a standalone diagnostic image since it represents information of a patient that could not be congruent with the current (actual) patient position and shall, therefore, always be seen as an additional source of information.

The Virtual Navigator tracking system is contraindicated for patients, personnel and other people who use an electronic life support device (such as a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator).

Model 6440 is a mainframe ultrasound system used to perform diagnostic general ultrasound studies. The primary modes of operation are: B-Mode, Tissue Enhancement Imaging (TEI), M-Mode, Multi View (MView), Doppler (both PW and CW), Color Flow Mapping (CFM), Amplitude Doppler (AD), Tissue Velocity Mapping (TVM), 3D and 4D, Qualitative Elastosonography (ElaXto) and Quantitative Elastosonography (QElaXto).

Model 6440 has the Virtual Navigator software option integrated, designed to support a radiological clinical ultrasound examination (first modality) and follow a percutaneous procedure providing additional image information from a second imaging modality (CT, MR, US and PET). The user is helped in assessing the patient anatomy by displaying the image generated by the 2nd modality.

Model 6440 is equipped with a LCD color display where acquired images and advanced image features are shown. Model 6440 control panel is equipped with a pull-out Qwerty alphanumeric keyboard that allows data entry. The touchscreen has an emulation of the Qwerty alphanumeric keyboard that allows data entry and has additional controls and mode-depending keys, integrated in the touchscreen.

Model 6440 can drive Phased Array (PA), Convex Array (LA), Doppler and Volumetric probes.

Model 6440 is equipped with an internal Hard Disk Drive and with a DVD-RW disk drive that can be used for image storage. Data can also be stored directly to external archiving media (Hard-Disk, PC, server) via a LAN/USB port.

The marketing name for Model 6440 will be called MyLab9 eXP.

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Esaote 6440 Ultrasound System. The document does not describe a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in terms of diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for an AI/CADe device. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical comparisons and compliance with relevant safety and performance standards for a general ultrasound system and its integrated software options.

The document discusses performance data related to:

• Biocompatibility Testing: For transducers, conducted according to FDA Blue Book Memorandum #G95-1 and ISO 10993-1. These tests included cytotoxicity, sensitization, and irritation.
• Electrical Safety and Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC): Compliance with IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, and IEC 60601-2-37 standards.
• Software Verification and Validation Testing: Documentation provided as per FDA guidance, and the software was classified as a "moderate" level of concern.
• Mechanical and Acoustic Testing: Acoustic output testing according to NEMA Standards Publication UD 2-2004 Revision 3 (R2009) and UD 3-2004 Revision 2 (R2009).

Since this document primarily addresses a substantial equivalence determination for a general ultrasound system and its software options based on compliance with standards and technical comparisons, it does not contain the specific information typically associated with a study proving diagnostic performance against quantitative acceptance criteria for an AI/CADe device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set size and ground truth establishment) are not applicable in this context, as they pertain to clinical performance studies for AI/CADe devices, which are not detailed in this submission.

However, based on the provided text, I can infer a general "acceptance criteria" related to functional performance and safety, and the "reported device performance" is that it "passes" these criteria through various non-clinical tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance:

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 submission describes non-clinical testing (biocompatibility, electrical safety, software V&V, mechanical/acoustic) and comparisons to predicate devices, not a clinical study with a test set of patient data to assess diagnostic performance.

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. See explanation above.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not Applicable. See explanation above.

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 submission does not describe an AI-assisted diagnostic study or any MRMC study. The "Virtual Navigator" software option is described as providing "additional image information from a second imaging modality," not as an AI or CADe system intended to assist human readers in improving diagnostic tasks.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Not Applicable. The device is a diagnostic ultrasound system. While it contains software, no standalone diagnostic algorithm performance study is described.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
Not Applicable. See explanation above. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the established specifications and standards for each test (e.g., successful cell growth for cytotoxicity, compliance with electrical limits).

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not Applicable. There is no mention of a training set as this is not an AI/CADe device submission detailing such a development process.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not Applicable. See explanation above.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Resona 7/Resona 7CV/Resona 7EXP/Resona 7S/Resona 70B diagnostic ultrasound system is applicable for adults, pregnant women, pediatric patients and neonates. It is intended for use in fetal, abdominal, intra-operative (abdominal, thoracic, and vascular), pediatric, small organ (breast, thyroid, testes), neonatal cephalic, trans-rectal, trans-vaginal, musculo-skeletal (conventional), cardiac adult, cardiac pediatric, trans-esoph. (cardiac), peripheral vessel and urology exams.

Resona 7/Resona 7CV/Resona 7EXP/Resona 7S/Resona 70B Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a general purpose, mobile, software controlled, ultrasound diagnostic system. Its function is to acquire and display ultrasound images in B mode, M mode, PW mode, CW mode, Color mode, Power/Dirpower mode, THI, TDI mode, 3D/4D mode, Color M mode, iScape mode, Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging(LVO and Liver), Ultrasound Fusion Imaging, V Flow, STE, STQ or the combined mode (i.e. B/M-Mode).This system is a Track 3 device that employs an array of probes that include linear array, convex array and phased array.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd. to the FDA regarding their Resona 7 Diagnostic Ultrasound System. This type of submission is for demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily for proving novel clinical claims or improved clinical effectiveness through extensive clinical trials.

Therefore, the document does not contain information on acceptance criteria for an AI/CADe device's performance, nor does it detail a study proving such performance in the way a clinical study for a novel AI algorithm would. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that a modified ultrasound system remains substantially equivalent to its predicate.

However, based on the structure of your request and assuming this was a document from which one hoped to extract such information about a theoretical AI/CADe device, I will explain why most of your requested points cannot be answered from this document and what information is relevant to the device's acceptance.

This document is for an ultrasound imaging system, not an AI/CADe device. As such, the "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" are related to traditional ultrasound device performance and safety, not AI algorithm performance.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

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

The document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria for AI performance. The acceptance criteria for this ultrasound system are related to its safety, electrical performance, acoustic output, and imaging capabilities being equivalent to the predicate device. The performance is "proven" by compliance with recognized standards and comparison to the predicate.

• Acceptance Criteria (Implicit for a traditional ultrasound device K-submission):

  • Substantial equivalence to predicate device in terms of intended use, technology, safety, and effectiveness.
  • Compliance with recognized safety standards (e.g., AAMI/ANSI ES60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-2-37).
  • Acoustic output levels below FDA limits.
  • Biocompatibility of patient-contacting materials (for new transducers/brackets).
  • Effective cleaning and disinfection.
  • Software lifecycle processes compliance (IEC 62304).
  • Risk management (ISO 14971).
  • Imaging modes and features perform similarly to predicate.

• Reported Device Performance: The document states that the device "has been found to conform with applicable medical safety standards" and "is substantially equivalent with respect to safety and effectiveness to devices currently cleared for market." It doesn't present specific quantitative performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC as one would expect for an AI/CADe device, but rather confirms compliance with established engineering and safety benchmarks relevant to ultrasound systems.

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

This document is for a traditional ultrasound imaging system submission (510(k)), not an AI/CADe device. Therefore, it does not describe a "test set" or "data provenance" in the context of an AI algorithm being evaluated on a dataset of patient images.

The "testing" mentioned refers to engineering and safety tests on the physical device and its software, not performance on a clinical image dataset for diagnostic accuracy.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/CADe device that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" for the device's function is its ability to produce images and measurements according to its specifications and to operate safely, which is verified through engineering tests and comparison to the predicate.

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

Not applicable, for the same reasons as point 3.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable. This is a 510(k) for an ultrasound system, not an AI-assisted device. The "multi-reader multi-case" study design is typical for evaluating the impact of AI on human reader performance, which is not relevant to this submission.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent in its operation as an imaging system.

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

Not applicable for an AI/CADe device. The "ground truth" for this ultrasound system relates to its technical performance and safety, which are evaluated against engineering standards and comparison to a predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/CADe device that has a "training set."

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/CADe device that has a "training set."

Summary from the document's perspective:

The document describes a 510(k) submission for a Diagnostic Ultrasound System (Resona 7/Resona 7CV/Resona 7EXP/Resona 7S/Resona 7OB). The core of this submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices (primarily K162267, Resona 7, and others like DC-8, ZS3).

The "acceptance criteria" and "study" are therefore focused on:

• Safety and Effectiveness: Ensuring the new/modified device is as safe and effective as the predicate.
• Compliance with Standards: A list of recognized consensus standards is provided (e.g., AAMI/ANSI ES60601-1 for electrical safety, IEC 60601-1-2 for EMC, IEC 60601-2-37 for ultrasonic equipment, ISO 14971 for risk management, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, NEMA UD 2 for acoustic output). The "study" is the non-clinical testing performed to show compliance with these standards.
• Functional Equivalence: The device employs the same underlying technology (ultrasonic energy transmission and processing), has the same intended uses (e.g., fetal, abdominal, cardiac exams), and generally the same basic operating modes as its predicate. New transducers and features are added, but they are evaluated in the context of the device remaining substantially equivalent.

The document explicitly states under "8. Clinical Tests: Not Applicable," which further confirms that no clinical studies (like those evaluating AI diagnostic performance or human reader improvement with AI) were conducted or required for this particular 510(k) submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for use by a qualified physician for ultrasound evaluation of Fetal/Obstetrics; Abdominal; Adult Cephalic; Cardiac (adult and pediatric); Peripheral Vascular; Musculo-skeletal Conventional and Superficial; Urology (including prostate); Transvaginal; Transesophageal and Intraoperative (abdominal, thoracic, vascular).

The LOGIQ S8 is a full featured, general purpose diagnostic ultrasound system which consists of a mobile console approximately 520 mm wide (keyboard), 865 mm deep and 1760 mm high that provides digital acquisition, processing and display capability. The user interface includes a computer keyboard, specialized controls, 10.1-inch LCD touch screen and color widescreen monitor.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the GE LOGIQ S8 ultrasound system. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving novel claims or establishing new acceptance criteria through extensive clinical studies.

Therefore, the document does not provide specific acceptance criteria in terms of analytical or clinical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy for a particular disease or measurement), nor does it detail a study performed to prove such metrics against acceptance criteria. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics, intended use, and compliance with recognized safety and performance standards.

Here's an breakdown of the information that can be extracted based on your request, as well as indications of what is not present in this type of regulatory filing:

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

This information is not provided in the document as it is a 510(k) summary for showing substantial equivalence, not a clinical trial report establishing new performance criteria. The "performance" described relates primarily to equivalence with predicate devices and compliance with general safety and performance standards.

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

This information is not provided. The document explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, LOGIQ S8, did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." The testing mentioned is for acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning/disinfection, and safety standards.

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)

This information is not provided as no clinical studies are reported to have been conducted for this submission.

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

This information is not provided as no clinical studies are reported to have been conducted for this submission.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

This information is not provided. The device is an ultrasound imaging system, and there's no mention of AI assistance or MRMC studies in this document.

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

This information is not provided. The device is a diagnostic ultrasound imaging system, not an AI algorithm for standalone interpretation.

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

This information is not provided as no clinical studies are reported to have been conducted for this submission. The "ground truth" for the device's claims are the safety and performance characteristics of its predicate devices and compliance with recognized standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided as no machine learning or AI training is mentioned as being part of this submission's substantial equivalence argument.

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

This information is not provided as no machine learning or AI training is mentioned.

Summary of what the document does provide regarding device performance and compliance:

The document focuses on demonstrating that the GE LOGIQ S8 is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This is achieved by:

• Intended Use Equivalence: Stating that the LOGIQ S8 has the same clinical intended use as the predicate LOGIQ S8 (K152195).
• Technological Equivalence: Declaring that it employs the same fundamental scientific technology as its predicate device(s).
• Imaging Modes: Noting that it has the same imaging modes as the predicate LOGIQ S8, with additions of Fibroscan elastography and CAP (Controlled Attenuation Parameter), which are equivalent to features found on the reference predicate FibroScan (K160524).
• Safety and Standards Compliance:
  • Manufactured with materials evaluated and found safe.
  • Acoustic power levels are below applicable FDA limits.
  • Designed in compliance with approved electrical and physical safety standards.
  • Compliance with voluntary standards:
    • AAMI/ANSI ES60601-1 (Medical Electrical Equipment - General Requirements for Safety)
    • IEC60601-1-2 (Electromagnetic Compatibility)
    • IEC60601-2-37 (Ultrasonic Medical Diagnostic and Monitoring Equipment Safety)
    • ISO10993-1 (Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices)
    • ISO14971 (Application of risk management to medical devices)
    • NEMA UD 2 (Acoustic Output Measurement Standard)
    • NEMA UD 3 (Real Time Display of Thermal and Mechanical Acoustic Output Indices)
    • NEMA, Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Set.
  • Quality assurance measures applied to development (Risk analysis, Requirements Reviews, Design Reviews, Testing on unit level, Integration testing, Final Acceptance Testing, Performance testing, Safety testing).
  • Transducer and patient contact materials are biocompatible.

The document lists various transducers cleared with the system and for which clinical applications and modes of operation they are "previously cleared" (P), "new" (N), or "added under Appendix E" (E), primarily based on equivalence to other GE Ultrasound systems (e.g., LOGIQ E9, VIVID E90/E95).

In conclusion, for this specific 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" are compliance with established medical device safety and performance standards and demonstration of substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than predefined performance thresholds from new clinical trials.

Ask a specific question about this device