Search Results

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Camtronics Digital Imaging System, submitted in 1995. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria or reporting on a clinical study for device performance against specific metrics. Therefore, much of the requested information cannot be extracted directly from this document.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the provided text:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

This information is not provided in the document. The 510(k) summary is comparing the features and specifications of the new device to predicate devices to argue for substantial equivalence, not against pre-defined acceptance criteria for performance.

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: "Performance data: Not required for determination of substantial equivalence for this class of device." This indicates that a formal study with a test set and associated data provenance was not conducted or submitted for this specific regulatory pathway.

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. Since performance data and a test set are stated as "not required," there would be no ground truth establishment by experts for such a study.

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

This information is not provided. As no test set performance data was required or provided, there would be no adjudication method.

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 described is a "Digital Imaging System," a Picture Archiving and Communications Device, intended for image acquisition, display control/image processing, input/output control, and patient data management. It predates the widespread concept of AI assistance in medical imaging and its primary function is not to interpret images or assist human readers in that capacity. Therefore, an MRMC study on reader improvement with AI assistance would not be applicable to this device or its regulatory submission context in 1995.

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

This information is not provided. Given the device's function as an imaging system, not an interpretive algorithm, a standalone performance study in the modern sense of AI algorithms would not have been relevant or conducted for this submission.

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

This information is not provided. As no performance study with a test set was required or presented, there is no mention of ground truth types.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not provided. As this is a digital imaging system and not a machine learning algorithm in the modern sense, the concept of a "training set" as it relates to AI/ML would not apply. The device's functionality is based on established engineering principles for image acquisition, processing, and display.

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

This information is not provided. Similar to point 8, the concept of a training set and its associated ground truth establishment is not applicable to this type of device and its regulatory submission in 1995.

In summary: The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the Camtronics Digital Imaging System to existing predicate devices based on feature comparison. It explicitly states that "Performance data: Not required for determination of substantial equivalence for this class of device." Therefore, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria, performance studies, test/training sets, or ground truth establishment that would typically be found in submissions for devices requiring such data (e.g., AI/ML-driven diagnostic devices).

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1