Search Filters

Search Results

Found 3 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K241201, K240115, K240906, K221300, K190913

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The MX7/MX7T/Vaus7/Zeus/ME7/Anesus ME7/Anesus ME7T/MX7P/MX7W/MX8/MX8T/Vaus8/ME8/Nuda/Aquila/Malody 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 cephalic,adult cephalic,trans-rectal, trans-vaginal, musculo-skeletal(conventional), musculo-skeletal(superficial), thoracic/pleural, cardiac adult, cardiac pediatric, peripheral vessel and urology, intra-operative(abdominal, thoracic, and vascular) , Laparoscopic, trans-esoph(Cardiac) exams.

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

    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.

    Device Description

    The MX7, MX7T, Vaus7, Zeus, ME7, Anesus ME7, Anesus ME7T, MX7P, MX7W, MX8, MX8T, Vaus8, ME8, Nuda, Aquila, Malody 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, Combined mode (B+M, PW+B, Color+B, Power+B, PW+Color+B, Power+PW+B), Tissue Harmonic Imaging, iScape, TDI, color M, Smart 3D, 4D(Real-time 3D), Strain Elastography, Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for LVO), Contrast imaging (Contrast agent for Liver).

    The MX7, MX7T, Vaus7, Zeus, ME7, Anesus ME7, Anesus ME7T, MX7P, MX7W, MX8, MX8T, Vaus8, ME8, Nuda, Aquila, Malody 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.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter states that clinical studies were Not Applicable for the Mindray Diagnostic Ultrasound System (K251192) to support substantial equivalence. Therefore, there is no information in this document about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria through clinical data.

    The letter explicitly states:
    "8. Clinical Studies
    Not applicable. The subject of this submission, MX7, MX7T, Vaus7, Zeus, ME7, Anesus ME7, Anesus ME7T, MX7P, MX7W, MX8, MX8T, Vaus8, ME8, Nuda, Aquila, Malody Diagnostic Ultrasound System, does not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

    Instead, the submission relies on:

    • Comparison with Predicate Devices: The document extensively details how the subject device is comparable and substantially equivalent to existing cleared predicate devices (e.g., MX7 (K241432), TEX20 (K241201), Resona I8W (K240115), TE Air (K240906), Consona N6 (K221300), QLAB (K190913)) in terms of intended use, imaging modes, features, functions, and technological characteristics.
    • Non-clinical Tests: The device was evaluated for acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning and disinfection effectiveness, and thermal, electrical, and mechanical safety, in compliance with various recognized standards (e.g., NEMA UD 2-2004, ANSI AAMI ES60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, ISO 14971, ISO 10993-1).

    Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as they would apply to clinical efficacy/performance for a new AI/software component, because this information is not present in the provided 510(k) summary. The clearance is based on substantial equivalence to existing predicate ultrasound systems and non-clinical safety/performance testing.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K243793
    Date Cleared
    2025-05-21

    (162 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    892.1550
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K190913, K211597

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    EPIQ: The intended use of EPIQ Ultrasound Diagnostic 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), Cardiac Pediatric, Cerebral Vascular, Cephalic (Adult), Cephalic (Neonatal), Fetal/Obstetric, Gynecological, Intraoperative (Vascular), Intraoperative (Cardiac), intra-luminal, intra-cardiac echo, Musculoskeletal (Conventional), Musculoskeletal (Superficial), Ophthalmic, Other: Urology, Pediatric, Peripheral Vessel, Small Organ (Breast, Thyroid, Testicle), Transesophageal (Cardiac), Transrectal, Transvaginal, Lung.
    Affiniti: The intended use of Affiniti Series Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems is diagnostic ultrasound imaging and fluid flow analysis of the human body, with the following indications for use: Abdominal, Cardiac Adult, Cardiac Other (Fetal), Cardiac Pediatric, Cerebral Vascular, Cephalic (Adult), 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, Lung.

    Device Description

    The R-Trigger algorithm software feature on Philips EPIQ and Affiniti Ultrasound System is intended to support detection of R-wave peak (R-trigger) as an input to certain TTE clinical applications, initially including AutoStrain LV, AutoEF, 2D Auto LV (collectively referred to as "AutoStrain"), and AutoMeasure applications. The R-trigger algorithm is planned to be implemented as workflow enhancement for transthoracic clinical applications on EPIQ and Affiniti Ultrasound Systems in the VM13 software release. The Auto-Measure and AutoStrain features support users during B-mode (2D), CW-, PW- and TDI-Doppler measurements by automating some of the measurements needed to complete a routine transthoracic echo (TTE) exam for adult patients. The R-trigger feature (non-ECG-based) has been developed to enable clinical users to use AutoMeasure and AutoStrain application without the R-trigger (ECG based) input, which is currently required. There are no hardware changes to the EPIQ and Affiniti systems due to change to the introduction of the R-Trigger software application. The software application is supported by all EPIQ and Affiniti models running software version 13.0 or higher.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter describes the R-Trigger software application on Philips EPIQ and Affiniti Ultrasound Systems, which aims to provide an alternative method for detecting R-wave peaks (R-triggers) for cardiac clinical applications like AutoStrain and AutoMeasure, especially when the ECG signal is unavailable or unusable.

    Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

    The primary acceptance criteria for the R-Trigger algorithm are related to the agreement of its R-wave time stamp detection with the ground truth (ECG-based R-trigger) and the subsequent impact on the clinical outputs of AutoMeasure and AutoStrain. These are evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis (for agreement, specifically the Upper and Lower Limits of Agreement, LoA) and Pearson's correlation (for correlation, specifically the Lower Confidence Bound, LCB).

    Endpoint / Outcome ComparisonMeasurement TypeAcceptance Criteria (Upper/Lower LoA or LCB)Reported Device Performance (Upper/Lower LoA or Pearson's r with 95% CI)Met Criteria?
    Endpoint 1: R-trigger
    R-wave peak time stampTime Stamp[-99.5ms, 99.5ms]-58.06ms (-59.34, -56.78) to 69.69ms (68.41, 70.97)Yes (-58.06 > -99.5, 69.69 < 99.5)
    Endpoint 3: AutoStrain
    EFEF (Correlation)LCB > 0.80.892 (0.853, 0.922)Yes (0.853 > 0.8)
    GLSGLS (Correlation)LCB > 0.80.992 (0.990, 0.994)Yes (0.990 > 0.8)
    Endpoint 2: AutoMeasure
    MV E VelPw/cw Doppler velocity[-25%, 25%]-12.00 % (-13.17%, -10.84 %) to 12.98 % (11.81 %, 14.14%)Yes (-12.00 > -25, 12.98 < 25)
    LVIDdDistance[-30%, 30%]-9.33 % (-9.84%, -8.81 %) to 9.33 % (8.82 %, 9.85%)Yes (-9.33 > -30, 9.33 < 30)
    RVLdDistance[-30%, 30%]-8.60 % (-9.57 %, -7.62 %) to 5.35 % (4.38 %, 6.33%)Yes (-8.60 > -30, 5.35 < 30)
    TR VTIPw/cw Doppler VTI[-29%, 29%]-12.26 % (-15.15 %, -9.37 %) to 17.44 % (14.54 %, 20.33%)Yes (-12.26 > -29, 17.44 < 29)
    PV VTIPw/cw Doppler VTI[-29%, 29%]-13.73 % (-15.87 %, -11.59 %) to 17.91 % (15.78 %, 20.05%)Yes (-13.73 > -29, 17.91 < 29)
    LA Diameter a.p. (PLAX)Distance[-30%, 30%]-8.05 % (-9.41 %, -6.70 %) to 9.39 % (8.03 %, 10.74%)Yes (-8.05 > -30, 9.39 < 30)
    MV A VelPw/cw Doppler velocity[-25%, 25%]-15.95 % (-17.44 %, -14.47 %) to 14.69 % (13.20 %, 16.17%)Yes (-15.95 > -25, 14.69 < 25)
    Ao SV diamDistance[-30%, 30%]-7.60 % (-8.42 %, -6.77 %) to 9.30 % (8.47 %, 10.12%)Yes (-7.60 > -30, 9.30 < 30)
    LVOT diamDistance[-30%, 30%]-9.84 % (-10.51 %, -9.16 %) to 9.55 % (8.87 %, 10.22%)Yes (-9.84 > -30, 9.55 < 30)
    LVOT VTIPw/cw Doppler VTI[-29%, 29%]-10.97 % (-12.66 %, -9.28 %) to 14.41 % (12.72 %, 16.09%)Yes (-10.97 > -29, 14.41 < 29)
    AoR Diam(2D) = Ao Annlus diamDistance[-30%, 30%]-13.02 % (-14.60 %, -11.44 %) to 13.00 % (11.42 %, 14.58%)Yes (-13.02 > -30, 13.00 < 30)
    RV S'(l)TDI velocity[-28%, 28%]-16.11 % (-17.59 %, -14.63 %) to 17.97 % (16.49 %, 19.45%)Yes (-16.11 > -28, 17.97 < 28)
    LV A'(s)TDI velocity[-28%, 28%]-15.85 % (-18.53 %, -13.17 %) to 17.53 % (14.85 %, 20.22%)Yes (-15.85 > -28, 17.53 < 28)
    TR VmaxPw/cw Doppler velocity[-25%, 25%]-9.66 % (-11.95 %, -7.38 %) to 13.83 % (11.54 %, 16.12%)Yes (-9.66 > -25, 13.83 < 25)
    AV VTIPw/cw Doppler VTI[-29%, 29%]-12.85 % (-14.06 %, -11.64 %) to 14.77 % (13.56 %, 15.98%)Yes (-12.85 > -29, 14.77 < 29)
    Ao Asc diamDistance[-30%, 30%]-9.63 % (-10.49 %, -8.76 %) to 10.64 % (9.77 %, 11.50%)Yes (-9.63 > -30, 10.64 < 30)
    TAPSEDistance (TAPSE/MAPSE)[-34%, 34%]-19.65 % (-22.85 %, -16.44 %) to 18.23 % (15.02 %, 21.43%)Yes (-19.65 > -34, 18.23 < 34)
    Ao STJ diamDistance[-30%, 30%]-7.61 % (-8.26 %, -6.95 %) to 8.83 % (8.17 %, 9.49%)Yes (-7.61 > -30, 8.83 < 30)
    RA Volume (A4Cs)Volume Contour[-46%, 46%]-27.08 % (-29.52 %, -24.63 %) to 32.89 % (30.45 %, 35.33%)Yes (-27.08 > -46, 32.89 < 46)
    LA Vol (A2Cs)Volume Contour[-46%, 46%]-21.72 % (-23.61 %, -19.82 %) to 20.47 % (18.58 %, 22.37%)Yes (-21.72 > -46, 20.47 < 46)
    LA Vol (A4Cs)Volume Contour[-46%, 46%]-23.80 % (-25.88 %, -21.73 %) to 21.51 % (19.44 %, 23.58%)Yes (-23.80 > -46, 21.51 < 46)
    LV A'(l)TDI velocity[-28%, 28%]-17.60 % (-20.15 %, -15.06 %) to 21.44 % (18.90 %, 23.98%)Yes (-17.60 > -28, 21.44 < 28)
    LV E'(s)TDI velocity[-28%, 28%]-19.45 % (-21.25 %, -17.65 %) to 20.89 % (19.08 %, 22.69%)Yes (-19.45 > -28, 20.89 < 28)
    LV E'(l)TDI velocity[-28%, 28%]-19.21 % (-21.04 %, -17.37 %) to 21.62 % (19.78 %, 23.45%)Yes (-19.21 > -28, 21.62 < 28)
    LVPWdDistance Short[-40%, 40%]-14.13 % (-14.89 %, -13.36 %) to 13.59 % (12.82 %, 14.35%)Yes (-14.13 > -40, 13.59 < 40)
    MV Dec. TimeDoppler Time Interval[-35%, 35%]-24.95 % (-26.87 %, -23.03 %) to 23.62 % (21.70 %, 25.54%)Yes (-24.95 > -35, 23.62 < 35)
    IVSdDistance Short[-40%, 40%]-15.82 % (-16.65 %, -15.00 %) to 14.21 % (13.38 %, 15.04%)Yes (-15.82 > -40, 14.21 < 40)
    TV Ann diam ant-postDistance[-30%, 30%]-14.91 % (-17.46 %, -12.37 %) to 14.74 % (12.20 %, 17.29%)Yes (-14.91 > -30, 14.74 < 30)
    LVIDsDistance[-30%, 30%]-13.31 % (-14.27 %, -12.34 %) to 12.98 % (12.02 %, 13.95%)Yes (-13.31 > -30, 12.98 < 30)
    RVDd base (RVD1)Distance[-30%, 30%]-12.60 % (-13.27 %, -11.92 %) to 12.68 % (12.00 %, 13.36%)Yes (-12.60 > -30, 12.68 < 30)
    RVDd mid (RVD2)Distance[-30%, 30%]-20.45 % (-21.80 %, -19.11 %) to 16.86 % (15.51 %, 18.21%)Yes (-20.45 > -30, 16.86 < 30)
    MR VTIPw/cw Doppler VTI[-29%, 29%]-14.36 % (-15.90 %, -12.82 %) to 17.04 % (15.50 %, 18.58%)Yes (-14.36 > -29, 17.04 < 29)

    Conclusion on Acceptance Criteria: The study results demonstrate that the R-Trigger AI-based algorithm meets all the pre-defined acceptance criteria across all three primary endpoints (R-trigger time stamp detection, AutoStrain outputs, and AutoMeasure outputs), as indicated by the reported confidence intervals for the limits of agreement and correlation.

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

    • Test Set Sample Size: A total of 7309 cardiac clips from 3964 subjects were used for the analysis of the R-trigger AI-based algorithm.
    • Data Provenance: The data consisted of retrospective cardiac TTE clips acquired with Philips Ultrasound systems. The subject demographics indicate data from various regions, including North America (USA1, USA2, Canada, Mexico) and "Rest of world". This suggests a diverse, multi-national data set.

    3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:

    The document states that the R-Trigger algorithm's performance was compared against "ECG-based R-trigger" as the ground truth. It does not explicitly mention the number or qualifications of human experts used to establish this ground truth or to review the R-trigger AI's output. The ECG signal from the on-cart physio board is presented as the existing and preferred method for R-trigger detection, implying it is the established clinical standard.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

    The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set. Instead, the study compares the R-trigger AI's output directly against the "ECG-based R-trigger" as the established ground truth. It also mentions that "users are generally expected to review and concur with the initialization and generated results" and can "edit the application(s) generated measurements and outputs based on their clinical expertise," implying a human-in-the-loop for clinical use, but not necessarily for the ground truth establishment in this particular retrospective study.

    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 not explicitly stated or performed in this context. The study focuses on the standalone performance of the R-Trigger AI algorithm compared to the existing ECG-based R-trigger, and its impact on automated measurements, rather than a direct comparison of human readers' performance with and without AI assistance on R-trigger detection itself. The AI is positioned as a "back-up" or "workflow enhancement" rather than a tool to directly improve human reader accuracy in R-trigger detection, as the ECG is the preferred method when available.

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

    Yes, a standalone performance study was conducted. The primary endpoint #1 specifically evaluated "the performance of the R-Trigger (non-ECG) algorithm in isolation" by comparing its detected R-wave time stamp against the ECG-based R-trigger (ground truth). Endpoints #2 and #3 then evaluated the impact of this standalone algorithm's output when used as input for AutoMeasure and AutoStrain. The study reports the performance of the AI algorithm directly, without human intervention in the R-trigger detection process for the test clips.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

    The primary ground truth used for evaluating the R-Trigger AI algorithm was the ECG-based R-trigger signal obtained from the ultrasound system's on-cart physio board. This is considered the established clinical standard for R-wave detection in cardiac cycles.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

    The document does not provide the sample size used for the training set for the R-Trigger AI algorithm. It only details the test set's sample size and demographics.

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

    The document does not specify how the ground truth for the training set was established. Given that the ground truth for the test set was the "ECG-based R-trigger," it is highly probable that similar ECG signals were used to establish the ground truth for the training data, allowing the AI to learn to identify R-wave peaks from ultrasound clips in correlation with known ECG R-waves.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K220242, K182857, K190913 K171314, K240115, K242231

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    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)

    Device Description

    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.

    AI/ML Overview

    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):

    Acceptance Criteria (Compliance/Safety)Reported Device Performance (Compliance)
    Acoustic output limits (FDA)Below FDA limits (same as predicates)
    Biocompatibility standardsCompliant (patient contact materials same as predicates or ISO 10993-1 tested)
    Cleaning and disinfection effectivenessEvaluated and compliant
    Thermal, electrical, mechanical safetyDesigned to conform with applicable medical safety standards (same as predicates)
    Electrical safety standardsCompliant with ANSI AAMI ES60601-1 and related IEC standards
    Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)Compliant with IEC 60601-1-2 and IEC TR 60601-4-2
    Usability standardsCompliant with IEC 60601-1-6 and IEC 62366-1
    Risk ManagementCompliant with ISO 14971
    Software Life Cycle ProcessesCompliant with IEC 62304
    Intended Use, Imaging Modes, Features, Functions, and Technological CharacteristicsComparable to and substantially equivalent to predicate devices (K222928, K220242, K182857, K190913, K171314, K240115, K242231)

    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 Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1