Search Results

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the CoLumboX device meets them, based on the provided FDA approval letter:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a tabulated format with numerical targets. However, the performance study section outlines the overall goal of the validation: to compare CoLumboX's output (both standalone and with physician assistance) against a ground truth for segmentation and measurements, demonstrating its intended performance.

Based on the information, the implied acceptance criteria revolve around the software's ability to accurately perform "Feature segmentation" and "Feature measurement," and its utility in assisting users.

Here's a table summarizing the reported device performance as described:

Details of the Study Proving Device Acceptance

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

• Sample Size: 100 image studies for 100 patients.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: U.S.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but "previously-acquired DICOM lumbar spine radiograph x-ray images" (from Indications for Use) and "clinical data-based software performance assessment study" (from Performance Data) generally point towards retrospective data collection. However, without further details, it's not definitively confirmed.

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

• Number of Experts: 3 radiologists.
• Qualifications of Experts: Only stated as "radiologists." No information on their years of experience, subspecialty, or board certification is provided in this document.

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

• The document states "ground truth defined by 3 radiologists." This implies a consensus-based approach, but the specific adjudication method (e.g., majority vote, all three agreement required, or a sub-reader resolving disagreements) is not specified. It just says "defined by" them, not how they defined it collaboratively.

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

• MRMC Study Conducted?: Yes, a comparative study was done. The study "compared the CoLumboX software outputs, and the output of a physician using and physician not using CoLumboX to the ground truth." This structure suggests an MRMC-like approach comparing human readers with and without AI assistance.
• Effect Size: The document does not provide any specific effect size or quantitative results on how much human readers improved with AI assistance compared to without AI assistance. It only states that this comparison was made.

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

• Standalone Performance?: Yes. The study "compared the CoLumboX software outputs... to the ground truth," indicating an evaluation of the algorithm's performance in isolation.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Expert consensus. Specifically, "ground truth defined by 3 radiologists on segmentations and measurements."

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The document does not provide any information regarding the sample size used for the training set.

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

• The document does not provide any information regarding how the ground truth was established for the training set. It only discusses the ground truth for the test set.

Ask a specific question about this device