Search Results

Recho R9W/Recho R9/Recho R9 Pro/Recho R9 Exp/Recho R9S/Recho R9T/Crius R9 CV/Anesus R9 CV/Recho R9 Super/Recho R9 Lumi/Recho R CV/Recho R CVx 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 and adult cephalic, trans-rectal, trans-vaginal, musculo-skeletal(conventional, superficial), thoracic/pleural, adult and pediatric cardiac, trans-esoph. (Cardiac), peripheral vessel, and urology 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, Amplitude Doppler, Combined mode(B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, Smart 3D, 4D, Matrix 4D, iScape View, TDI, Color M, Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO), V Flow, STE, STQ, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver)

The Recho R9W, Recho R9, Recho R9 Pro, Recho R9 Exp, Recho R9S, Recho R9T, Crius R9 CV, Anesus R9 CV, Recho R9 Super, Recho R9 Lumi, Recho R CV, Recho R CVx 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, Smart 3D, 4D, Matrix 4D, iScape View, TDI, Color M, Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO), V Flow, STE, STQ, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

The Recho R9W, Recho R9, Recho R9 Pro, Recho R9 Exp, Recho R9S, Recho R9T, Crius R9 CV, Anesus R9 CV, Recho R9 Super, Recho R9 Lumi, Recho R CV, Recho R CVx 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.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Mindray Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems (K250020) explicitly states that no clinical studies were required or performed to support substantial equivalence.

Therefore, based on the provided document, there is no information available regarding:

• Acceptance criteria based on clinical performance.
• A study proving the device meets clinical performance, as none was conducted.
• Sample size for test sets or their provenance.
• Number/qualifications of experts for ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• MRMC studies or effect sizes.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Sample size for training sets.
• How ground truth for training sets was established.

The substantial equivalence determination for this ultrasound system was based on non-clinical tests (acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning/disinfection, thermal/electrical/mechanical safety) and compliance with recognized medical safety standards.

The document highlights the following non-clinical tests and comparisons:

1. Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical):

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance:
* Not applicable as no clinical studies were performed. The equivalence was based on engineering and performance testing against standards and predicate devices.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth:
* Not applicable as the substantial equivalence was not based on clinical performance studies involving expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method:
* Not applicable as no clinical studies were performed.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:
* No MRMC study was done, as explicitly stated, "Clinical Studies: Not applicable."

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only):
* Not applicable as this is a general-purpose diagnostic ultrasound system, and the clearance is for the device as a whole, not a specific AI algorithm with standalone clinical performance metrics. While AI/software features like "Auto Strain LV," "Auto Strain RV," "Auto VQ LA," "X-Vue," and "Quick View" are mentioned, their performance evaluation for 510(k) clearance was not based on a clinical trial but on comparison to cleared predicate devices that already have similar functionalities.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:
* For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" was compliance with established engineering standards, regulatory limits (e.g., FDA acoustic output limits), and comparison to the technical specifications and performance of legally marketed predicate devices.

8. Sample Size for Training Set:
* Not applicable, as no information on specific machine learning model training sets or their sizes is provided for this 510(k) clearance. The focus is on the integrated ultrasound system's safety and effectiveness compared to predicates.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established:
* Not applicable, as no information on specific machine learning model training or associated ground truth establishment is provided.

In summary, the 510(k) clearance for this Mindray Diagnostic Ultrasound System was granted based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical performance and safety testing, and compliance with recognized standards, rather than through new clinical performance studies.

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

The intended use of the EPIQ Diagnostic Ultrasound System is diagnostic ultrasound imaging and fluid flow analysis of the human body with the following Indications for Use:

Abdominal, Cardiac Adult, Cardiac other (Fetal Echo), Cardiac Pediatric, Cerebral Vascular, Cephalic (Neonatal), Fetal/Obstetric, Gynecological, Intraoperative (Vascular), Intraoperative (Cardiac), Musculoskeletal (Conventional), Musculoskeletal (Superficial), Other: Urology, Pediatric, Peripheral Vessel, Small Organ (Breast, Thyroid, Testicle), Transesophageal (Cardiac), Transrectal, Transvaginal.

The clinical environments where the Philips EPIO Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems and Philips Affiniti Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems can be used include Clinics, Hospitals, and clinical point-of-care for diagnosis of patients.

When integrated with Philips EchoNavigator, the systems can assist the interventionalist and surgeon with image guidance during treatment of cardiovascular disease in which the procedure uses both live X-ray and live Echo Guidance.

The systems are intended to be installed and used only in accordance with the safety procedures and operating instructions given in the product user information. Systems are to be operated only by appropriately trained healthcare professionals for the purposes for which they were designed. However, nothing stated in the user information reduces user responsibility for sound clinical judgement and best clinical procedure.

The proposed Philips EPIQ Series Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems are general purpose, software controlled, diagnostic ultrasound systems. Their function is to acquire ultrasound data and to display the data in various modes of operation. The devices consist of two parts: the system console and the transducers. The system console contains the user interface, a display, system electronics and optional peripherals (ECG, printers).

Transducers are connected to the system using a plug in electrical connection. Other than the introductions of the new mC12-3 Transducer, the device description, accessories and components are unchanged.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Philips EPIQ Series Diagnostic Ultrasound System and mainly focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It contains very limited information regarding acceptance criteria and performance studies in the way typically expected for an AI/ML medical device.

Specifically, the document does not describe:

• A table of acceptance criteria for algorithm performance and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes used for a test set or its provenance.
• The number or qualifications of experts used for ground truth establishment.
• Adjudication methods for a test set.
• Whether a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done or the effect size of AI assistance for human readers.
• Whether a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done.
• The type of ground truth used (e.g., pathology, outcomes data).
• The sample size for a training set or how its ground truth was established.

The document states:

• "Non-Clinical verification testing has been performed addressing system level requirements according to system and design specifications, and risk control measures." (Page 6)
• "The proposed Philips EPIQ Series Diagnostic Ultrasound System did not require clinical data for determination of substantial equivalence." (Page 6)
• "For testing, all pre-determined acceptance criteria were met. Results of these tests show that the proposed Philips EPIQ Series Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems with the new mC12-3 transducer meet their intended use." (Page 7)

This suggests that the "testing" mentioned refers primarily to non-clinical performance data related to the safety and fundamental operation of the ultrasound system and its new transducer (mC12-3), rather than the performance of an AI/ML algorithm that predicts or classifies outcomes. The acceptance criteria met were likely related to electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, acoustic output, and biocompatibility, as listed under "Nonclinical Performance Data" on page 6.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, it is not possible to answer the detailed questions about acceptance criteria and study design for an AI/ML component, as the submission appears to be for a traditional ultrasound system and transducer, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Collaboration Live is indicated for remote console access of the Philips ultrasound system for image review, consultation, guidance, support, and education in real time. Access must be granted by the technologist operating the system. Images reviewed remotely are not for diagnostic use.

Collaboration Live is a new software feature integrated in Philips Epiq and Affiniti Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems (K182857). Collaboration Live enables two-way communication of text, voice, image, and video information between an ultrasound system operator and a remote user on a Windows desktop or laptop computer. Collaboration Live facilitates: 1) remote service support, 2) remote clinical training and education, and 3) remote peer-to-peer collaboration (non-diagnostic). Collaboration Live functionality includes a remote control feature in which the ultrasound system operator may grant a qualified remote user control of all ultrasound system parameters via a virtual control panel and virtual touch screen. The ultrasound system operator maintains the ability to take back system control at any time. The remote user interacts with the ultrasound system using the Collaboration Live remote application, which is called Reacts.

The provided text describes the "Collaboration Live" device, a software feature for Philips ultrasound systems, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (GE Customer Remote Console). However, the document does not contain specific acceptance criteria, a detailed study proving performance, or the specific data requested in the prompt.

Instead, it broadly states: "Software verification supported a determination of substantial equivalence with the predicate GE Customer Remote Console (K150193), and demonstrated that Collaboration Live meets the acceptance criteria and is adequate for its intended use."

Without explicit acceptance criteria and corresponding performance data, it's impossible to fill out the requested table and answer the specific questions about sample size, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details.

Therefore, the answer below reflects the absence of this detailed information in the provided document.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

The provided 510(k) summary for Philips Healthcare's "Collaboration Live" device states that "Software verification supported a determination of substantial equivalence with the predicate GE Customer Remote Console (K150193), and demonstrated that Collaboration Live meets the acceptance criteria and is adequate for its intended use."

However, the document does not explicitly define the specific acceptance criteria or present a detailed study report with quantitative performance metrics for Collaboration Live. No tables showing acceptance criteria alongside reported device performance are included. The description focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence based on technological similarities and software verification, rather than a quantifiable performance study against predefined criteria.

Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

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

• Not provided in the document. The document only states that the device "meets the acceptance criteria" without specifying what those criteria are or presenting detailed performance data.

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

• Not provided in the document. The document mentions "Software verification" but does not detail the test set size, its composition, or its origin (e.g., country, retrospective/prospective).

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. Since no specific performance study with a test set and ground truth establishment is detailed, this information is absent.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided.

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

• Not performed / Not stated. The document explicitly states, "Collaboration Live did not require clinical testing to support a determination of substantial equivalence." This implies no clinical comparative effectiveness study, including MRMC studies, was conducted or reported. "Collaboration Live" is described as a remote access and collaboration tool, not an AI diagnostic aid that would typically involve human reader performance improvement studies.

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

• Not performed / Not stated. The device is a collaboration tool, not an autonomous diagnostic algorithm, so standalone performance in the typical sense is not an applicable characteristic for this type of device.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. As no specific performance study against a ground truth is reported.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not provided. The document does not describe any machine learning or AI model training, thus no training set information is available.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device