Search Results

Medicsight ColonCAD™ API is a non-invasive computer aided detection (CAD) image analysis software tool designed to assist radiologists in the detection of colorectal polyps during their review of digital images derived from CT colonography (CTC). This CAD software post-processes the CTC image data obtained from multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scanners.

The device is intended to be used on patients referred for a CT Colonography examination, as an overlay tool to prompt the radiologist to colonic findings that have been identified by the device. The CAD can assist radiologists after they have made an initial review of all the CTC image data, supporting their evaluation ("second read").

Medicsight ColonCAD API is a medical imaging software tool designed to assist radiologists in the detection of polyps in CT scans of the product is packaged as an Application Programming Interface (API) which allows it to be integrated into existing medical imaging solutions.

The ColonCAD API assists the radiologist in detecting colorectal polyps using mathematical image processing techniques. The CAD assists the radiologist by highlighting potential polyps in 2D and 3D image views. The results are displayed in the form of "CAD marks" on or near the potential polyps. The radiologist must assess every CT scan image to search for polyps and review the CAD marked images to determine if the indicated findings are polyps.

Patient management decisions should not be made solely on the results of ColonCAD analysis.

The information provided details the Medicsight ColonCAD API device, its intended use, and a summary of studies conducted. However, the document does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria (e.g., a required sensitivity or specificity value) or the reported device performance in a numerical table. It only mentions that the device's accuracy was "significantly higher" with CAD assistance.

Therefore, I cannot populate a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance with specific numerical values based on this document.

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning the study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in the provided document.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated in the provided document (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated in the provided document.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not explicitly stated in the provided document.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated in the provided document.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Was an MRMC study done? Yes. The document states: "The results of the MRMC study demonstrated that radiologists' accuracy for detecting colorectal polyps of any size was significantly higher with CAD than in the unassisted read, as measured by the segment-level area under the ROC curve (AUC)."
• Effect Size: The document states that accuracy was "significantly higher" with CAD, and mentions "segment-level area under the ROC curve (AUC)" as the metric. However, it does not provide a numerical effect size (e.g., the specific AUC values for assisted vs. unassisted read, or the magnitude of improvement).

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Was a standalone study done? The document focuses on the C-CAD (Computer Aided Detection) device assisting radiologists, implying a human-in-the-loop scenario. While it mentions "internal clinical evaluations" as part of non-clinical studies, it does not detail a standalone algorithm-only performance study with specific metrics. The primary clinical study discussed is an MRMC study evaluating human-in-the-loop performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated in the provided document for the clinical study. It refers to "detecting colorectal polyps," implying a definitive diagnosis, but the method for establishing this truth is not detailed (e.g., pathology, expert consensus).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not explicitly stated in the provided document. The document mentions the ColonCAD API uses the "same underlying image processing technology" and "same algorithm" as the predicate ColonCAR 1.2 device (K042674), suggesting the training might have occurred prior to this specific API version's development or relies on pre-trained models.

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

• How Ground Truth Was Established (Training Set): Not explicitly stated in the provided document. As with the test set, the method for establishing the ground truth for training data (if new training was performed) is not detailed.

Ask a specific question about this device

iCAD's VeraLook™ CTC CAD is intended to automatically detect potential polyps in CT Colonography exams. The identified polyps can then be highlighted to the interpreting physician after initial review of the CTC exam with the intent of identifying additional potential polyps that may not have been identified on initial review.

The VeraLook is a software-based CAD system for detecting the location and extent of polyps in CTC exams. The product is intended to receive CTC images in standard DICOM format from any 3D workstation manufacturer, perform automated analysis on the images to identify polyps, and then produce information about the identified regions that can be received and displayed by CTC review workstations to help radiologists in the detection of polyps.

This looks like a medical device submission, specifically a 510(k) summary for iCAD's VeraLook™ CTC CAD Software. The provided text doesn't contain a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics. Instead, it offers a high-level overview of the device, its intended use, and a general statement about clinical data being supplied to satisfy the FDA's requirements.

Therefore, I cannot populate all the requested information directly from the provided text. I can only extract what is explicitly stated or can be reasonably inferred. Many of the requested details (like sample sizes, number of experts, adjudication methods, ground truth types for training and testing, and specific performance metrics) are not present in this summary document.

Here's a response based on the available information:

Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

The provided 510(k) summary states that "iCAD has supplied clinical data in addition to bench testing and simulations to assess safety and effectiveness of this claim" (referring to the claim of identifying "additional potential polyps that may not have been identified on initial review"). However, the summary does not provide specific acceptance criteria or the detailed results of that study.

Based on the provided text, the specific acceptance criteria and the detailed study proving the device meets them are not described. The summary only mentions that clinical data was supplied to address potential safety and effectiveness issues related to the device's specific claim.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Cannot be fully populated from the provided text. The document does not list specific acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) nor does it provide a table of reported device performance metrics against such criteria.

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

The provided text does not specify the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only generally states that "clinical data was supplied."

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

The provided text does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The provided text does not specify any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

The provided text does not explicitly state whether an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. It mentions the intent to identify "additional potential polyps that may not have been identified on initial review," which suggests an assist-read paradigm, but the details of such a study are not included. Therefore, the effect size of human readers' improvement with AI vs. without AI assistance is not provided.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

The provided text does not explicitly state whether a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done. The indication for use describes the device as providing "highlighted" polyps "after initial review of the CTC exam," implying human-in-the-loop performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

The provided text does not specify the type of ground truth used for either the test set or the training set.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The provided text does not specify the sample size for the training set.

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

The provided text does not describe how the ground truth for the training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

syngo® Imaging is a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) intended to display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store and archive digital radiological images, including digital mammography images.

It supports the physician in diagnosis and treatment planning.

For primary image diagnosis in mammography only uncompressed or non-lossy compressed images and only pre-processed DICOM "For Presentation" images must be used. Also only monitors which received FDA clearance for mammography must be used. syngo® Imaging also supports storage and archiving of DICOM Structured Reports.

In a comprehensive imaging suite syngo® Imaging integrates Radiology Information Systems (RIS) to enable customer specific workflows.

Enhanced syngo® Imaging workplaces use a variety of advanced postprocessing applications.

This premarket notification covers Siemens' enhanced PACS system syngo® Imaging, version V31.

syngo® Imaging is a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) intended to display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store and archive digital radiological images, including digital mammography images.

It supports the physician in diagnosis and treatment planning.

For primary image diagnosis in mammography only uncompressed or non-lossy compressed images and only pre-processed DICOM "For Presentation" images must be used.

syngo® Imaging also supports storage and archiving of Structured DICOM Reports.

In a comprehensive imaging suite syngo® Imaging integrates Radiology Information Systems (RIS) to enable customer specific workflows, especially by supporting the role based and context sensitive RIS portals (such as "Portal Radiologist").

Enhanced syngo® Imaging workplaces use a variety of advanced post processing applications.

The system is a "hardware independent" solution to be distributed either as software only or combined with common IT hardware which must comply to predefined minimum hardware requirements.

The version V31 contains 2 improvements on front end for usability, such as query enhancements and calibration improvements.

The provided 510(k) summary for Siemens' syngo® Imaging (version V31) is a software-only system described as a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). It is intended to display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store, and archive digital radiological images, including digital mammography images. It supports physicians in diagnosis and treatment planning.

Crucially, this 510(k) submission does not contain a study presenting specific acceptance criteria or device performance data in the format of a clinical trial or performance study. Instead, it is a Special 510(k), indicating a modification to an already cleared device. The primary method for proving safety and effectiveness in such cases is demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices, by showing that the new device does not introduce new potential safety risks and performs as well as the predicates.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for a study proving acceptance criteria will not be present in this document.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

As this is a Special 510(k) focused on substantial equivalence to predicate devices for a PACS system, there are no specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) or performance metrics for a diagnostic task reported in the document. The acceptance for a PACS system is generally tied to its ability to reliably perform its stated functions (display, process, store, etc.) and integrate with existing systems, rather than diagnostic accuracy metrics.

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

No specific test set or data provenance is mentioned as there isn't a performance study evaluating diagnostic accuracy. The "test set" for a PACS system mainly involves verification and validation testing to ensure software functionality, interoperability, and adherence to DICOM standards. These tests are typically conducted internally by the manufacturer and are not detailed in the 510(k) summary concerning specific image datasets or patient cohorts.

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

Not applicable. As there is no diagnostic performance study, there's no "ground truth" to establish for a test set in the context of expert review of images for disease detection.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable for the reasons stated above.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done or reported in this 510(k) summary. This type of study is typically performed for AI or CAD devices that directly aid in diagnostic interpretation, not for a general PACS system like syngo® Imaging.

6. If a Standalone Study Was Done:

No, a standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study was not done for diagnostic accuracy. The device itself is a PACS, which is inherently a human-in-the-loop system designed to present images for human interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

Not applicable. For a PACS system, "ground truth" relates to the correct functioning of the software, adherence to standards, and successful image archiving/retrieval, not to a diagnostic outcome or pathology finding from a specific image dataset.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This device is a PACS, not an AI or CAD system that would typically undergo a training phase on a large dataset of medical images.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for a machine learning model.

In summary, the 510(k) K081734 for syngo® Imaging (version V31) is a Special 510(k) demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared PACS devices. It focuses on proving that the enhanced version maintains safety and effectiveness and performs comparably to its predicates, particularly highlighting compliance with conditions for digital mammography image handling and general PACS functionalities. It does not present a clinical performance study with specific diagnostic acceptance criteria, test sets, or ground truth establishment because it's a PACS, not a diagnostic AI/CAD system.

Ask a specific question about this device

syngo® Imaging is a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) intended to display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store and archive digital radiological images, including digital mammography images.

It supports the physician in diagnosis and treatment planning.

For primary image diagnosis in mammography only uncompressed or non-lossy compressed images and only pre-processed DICOM "For Presentation" images must be used. Also only monitors which received FDA approval for mammography must be used. syngo® Imaging also supports storage and archiving of DICOM Structured Reports.

In a comprehensive imaging suite syngo® Imaging integrates Radiology Information Systems (RIS) to enable customer specific workflows.

Enhanced syngo® Imaging workplaces use a variety of advanced postprocessing applications.

This premarket notification covers Siemens´ enhanced PACS system syngo® Imaging, version V30.

syngo® Imaging is a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) intended to display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store and archive digital rediological images, including digital mammography images.

It supports the physician in diagnosis and treatment planning.

For primary image diagnosis in mammography only uncompressed or non-lossy compressed images and only pre-processed DICOM "For Presentation" images must be used. Also only monitors which received FDA approval for mammography must be used,

syngo® Imaging also supports storage and archiving of Structured DICOM Reports.

In a comprehensive imaging suite syngo® Imaging integrates Radiology Information Systems (RIS) to enable customer specific workflows. especially by supporting the role based and context sensitive RIS portals (such as "Portal Radiologist"). Enhanced syngo® Imaging workplaces use a variety of advanced post processing applications.

The system is a "hardware independent" solution to be distributed either as software only or combined with common IT hardware which must comply to predefined minimum hardware requirements.

The version V30 contains multiple improvements and optimizations on front end for usability, such as layout enhancements and display improvements.

The three syngo® Imaging workplace deployments ...

• syngo® Web Studio a web-based viewing application mainly used for image distribution a)
• b) syngo® Basic Studio - for basic reporting, inside as well as outside of the radiology (standalone workstation)
• syngo® Advanced Studio Advanced Application Bundle for use inside the radiology c) with advanced reporting functionality

... are medical diagnostic and viewing workstations intended for post processing, reporting, viewing and communicating / distributing of radiological softcopy images (including digital mammographic images) and so allow radiological technicians to receive and process all data needed.

Based on Siemens syngo® software, the syngo® Imaging supports the wide variety of image types and its modular design and is capable of combining applications from different modalities in one workstation.

The syngo® Advanced Studio integrates the modality specific application package syngo® CT Colonography (K042605).

The syngo Imaging supports external post processing via the OEM interface by integration of the 314 party application syngo® WebSpace (K062673).

By usage of only specific FDA approved monitors (e.g Siemens AG: SMVD 21500 or Dj(S)}-2103-D-5MP - K043122) validated together with the software, diagnosis on digital mammography images is possible, if images are not compressed lossy, as disclaimed respectively.

The main purpose is storing and archiving of radiological softcopy images and structured (DICOM) reports.

For PACS server the syngo® Imaging Data Management can be used as a DIC ()M-Archive (LTS Long-term Storage) in accordance with the DIC()M Conformance Statement.

The Workflow Management enables by integration of any HL7- / DICOM-compatible RIS (IHE Year 5) to the syngo® Imaging PACS a consistent workflow – from patient revisuration to requirement scheduling to a personal work list and supports therefore reporting, documentation or administrative tasks.

syngo® Imaging (version V30) is a "software only"-system, which will be delivered on CD-ROM / DVD or as a complete radiology solution consisting of common IT hardware and preinstalled software. syngo® Imaging will be installed by Siemens service engineers.

Defined Hardware requirements are to be met.

The backend communication and storage solution (DM) is based on LINUX and Windows 2003 operating system. The workplaces are based on Windows XP. Any hardware platform, which is Windows / Windows XP certified, will be supported.

The herewith described syngo® Imaging supports DICOM formatted images and objects.

By usage of redundant hardware component and cluster software a high availability concept could be realized, which provides as less as possible system downtime.

This 510(k) submission for the syngo® Imaging (version V30) PACS system does not contain the detailed information necessary to complete all sections of your request regarding acceptance criteria and a specific study proving device performance.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the given text. PACS systems generally have performance criteria related to image display accuracy, speed, information integrity, and workflow efficiency. However, no specific metrics or targets are mentioned.

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

This information is not provided. The submission states that "Risk management is ensured via a risk analysis, which is used to identify potential hazards. These potential hazards are controlled via software development, verification and validation testing," but no specifics on the test set for these activities are given.

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

This information is not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of Improvement with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

This information is not provided. The device is a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS), which is infrastructure software, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool in the sense of providing automated interpretations or aiding human readers in specific diagnostic tasks which would typically be evaluated with MRMC studies in this context. While it mentions "advanced post processing applications," it doesn't describe them as AI tools for diagnostic improvement.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

This information is not provided. As a PACS system, its primary function is to display, store, and manage images for human interpretation, not to provide standalone diagnostic results.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

This information is not provided.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided.

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

This information is not provided.

Summary of Device and Evidence from the Submission:

The document describes syngo® Imaging (version V30) as a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) intended to display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store, and archive digital radiological images, including digital mammography images. It supports physicians in diagnosis and treatment planning.

Key features highlighted related to performance and safety include:

• Mammography support: Requires uncompressed or non-lossy compressed images, pre-processed DICOM "For Presentation" images, and FDA-approved monitors for primary image diagnosis.
• "Hardware independent" solution: Can be distributed as software only or combined with common IT hardware that meets predefined minimum requirements.
• Risk Management: States that risk management is ensured via a risk analysis to identify potential hazards, controlled through software development, verification, and validation testing. Adherence to recognized industry practice and standards to minimize electrical, mechanical, and radiation hazards.
• Substantial Equivalence: The primary "proof" of safety and effectiveness for this type of device in a 510(k) submission is typically its substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The submission claims substantial equivalence to:
  • Siemens syngo Imaging (K05240i)
  • Siemens syngo MultiModality Workplace (K061964)
    The claim is that syngo® Imaging (V30) has the same intended use and similar technical characteristics, and "does not introduce any new potential safety risks and is substantially equivalent to and performs as well as the predicate devices."

In conclusion, this 510(k) summary focuses on the device's intended use, technological characteristics, and its substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. It does not contain a specific performance study with detailed acceptance criteria, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert evaluations that would be typical for an AI-powered diagnostic device or a device making quantitative performance claims. The "study" here is implicitly the substantiation of technical similarity and risk mitigation in comparison to existing predicate devices, rather than a clinical performance study with defined metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

syngo® Imaging is a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) intended to display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store and archive digital radiological images, including digital mammography images.

It supports the physician in diagnosis and treatment planning.

syngo® Imaging also supports storage and archiving of Structured DICOM Reports.

In a comprehensive imaging suite syngo® Imaging integrates Radiology Information Systems (RIS) to enable customer specific workflows.

Enhanced syngo® Imaging workplaces use a variety of advanced postprocessing applications.

This premarket notification covers Siemens enhanced PACS system syngo® Imaging, version V20A.

syngo® Imaging is a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) intended to display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store and archive digital radiological images, including digital mammography images.

It supports the physician in diagnosis and treatment planning.

syngo® Imaging also supports storage and archiving of Structured DICOM Reports.

Enhanced syngo® Imaging workplaces use a variety of advanced postprocessing applications.

The system is a "hardware independent" solution to be distributed either as software only or combined with common IT hardware which must comply to predefined minimum hardware requirements.

The version V20A contains improvements for workplace functionality, such as layout enhancements and display improvements (user interface) and amended functionality.

The three syngo® Imaging workplace deployments ...

• syngo® Web Studio a web-based viewing application mainly used for image distribution a)
• syngo® Basic Studio for basic reporting, inside as well as outside of the radiology b) (standalone workstation)
• syngo® Advanced Studio Advanced Application Bundle for use inside the radiology c) with advanced reporting functionality

... are medical diagnostic and viewing workstations intended for postprocessing, reporting, viewing and communicating / distributing of radiological softcopy images (including digital mammographic images) and so allow radiologists and radiological technicians to receive and process all data needed.

Based on Siemens syngo® software, the syngo® Imaging supports the wide variety of image types and its modular design and is capable of combining applications from different modalities in one workstation.

The syngo® Advanced Studio integrates the modality specific application package syngo® CT Colonography (K042605).

By usage of specific FDA approved monitors (Barco: Coronis dual head 21.3" Medical -K042221; Siemens AG: SMVD 21500 or DjSB-2103-D-5MP - K043122; Planar, Dome C5i-1 and C5i-2 - K032202) diagnosis on digital mammography images is possible, if images are not compressed lossy, as disclaimed respectively.

syngo® Imaging Data Management ensures all authorized personnel fast and continuous access to radiological data. It's main functionality ranges from availability of images having regard to data security, open interfaces, storage media, central system administration, back-up, software distribution to providing a flexible storage hierarchy.

The main purpose is storing and archiving of radiological softcopy images and structured (DICOM) reports.

For PACS server the syngo® Imaging Data Management can be used as a DICOM-Archive (LTS Longterm Storage) in accordance with the DICOM Conformance Statement.

syngo® Imaging (version V20A) is a "software only"-system, which will be delivered on CD-ROM / DVD or as a complete radiology solution consisting of common IT hardware and preinstalled software. syngo® Imaging will be installed by Siemens service engineers.

Defined Hardware requirements are to be met.

The backend communication and storage solution (DM) is based on the Solaris 8 operating system. The workplaces are based on Windows XP, as well as LINUX and IBM operating systems.

The herewith described syngo® Imaging supports DICOM formatted images and objects.

This 510(k) summary for the syngo® Imaging (V20A) PACS system does not contain the kind of detailed study information (acceptance criteria, specific performance metrics, ground truth establishment, sample sizes for training/test sets, MRMC studies, etc.) that would typically be required to prove a device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way you've outlined.

This document is a premarket notification for a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS), which is a general imaging software. The FDA 510(k) pathway for such devices often relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than conducting extensive clinical studies with specific performance metrics and acceptance criteria for diagnostic accuracy.

Therefore, I cannot fill out the requested table or answer most of the questions fully as the provided text does not contain this information.

Here's what I can extract and explain based on the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for image display, processing, or diagnostic accuracy. For a PACS, acceptance criteria would typically focus on functionalities like image loading speed, display quality (resolution, grey-scale accuracy), data integrity, storage capacity, and adherence to DICOM standards. These are generally verified through engineering and functional testing rather than clinical study performance metrics.
• Reported Device Performance: The document states that the device "performs as well as the predicate devices" in terms of its intended use and similar technical characteristics. It notes "improvements for workplace functionality, such as layout enhancements and display improvements (user interface) and amended functionality." However, it doesn't provide specific performance metrics (e.g., image loading times, display luminance, or diagnostic accuracy scores) to quantify these improvements or compare them against predifined acceptance criteria.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
* Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "verification and validation testing" as part of risk management, but it does not specify any test set size or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for a performance study.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
* Not applicable/not stated. As there's no diagnostic performance study described, there is no mention of experts establishing ground truth for a test set.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
* Not applicable/not stated. No adjudication method is mentioned as there's no described diagnostic performance 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. The document does not describe an MRMC study. This device is a PACS, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so such a study would not typically be performed or relevant for its 510(k) submission based on the provided text.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
* No. This is a PACS, an infrastructure and viewing system, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
* Not applicable/not stated. No ground truth is discussed as no diagnostic performance study is presented.

8. The sample size for the training set:
* Not applicable/not stated. This is a PACS, not a machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set" in the context of its performance validation as described here.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
* Not applicable/not stated. As there is no training set mentioned, there's no information on how its ground truth was established.

Summary of what the document does communicate regarding safety and effectiveness:

• Intended Use: Display, process, read, report, communicate, distribute, store, and archive digital radiological images, including digital mammography images, to support physicians in diagnosis and treatment planning.
• Predicate Devices: Siemens SIENET Cosmos (K042832), LEONARDO (K040970), MammoReport Softcopy Workstation (K042868).
• Substantial Equivalence Argument: Siemens argues that syngo® Imaging (V20A) "has the same intended use and similar technical characteristics" as the predicate devices and "does not introduce any new potential safety risks and is substantially equivalent to and performs as well as the predicate devices."
• Safety and Effectiveness Concerns: Risk management via risk analysis, software development, verification and validation testing, and adherence to industry practices and standards to minimize electrical, mechanical, and radiation hazards. The device labeling contains instructions for use and warnings.
• Key Features Highlighted: Enhanced workplace functionality, layout and display improvements, amended functionality, support for various image types, modular design, integration of syngo® CT Colonography, data management for storage and archiving, HL7/DICOM compatible RIS integration, and support for specific FDA approved monitors for digital mammography.

Conclusion:

The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the syngo® Imaging PACS to existing predicate devices based on intended use, technological characteristics, and safety considerations. It does not contain the detailed, quantitative performance study data with specific acceptance criteria, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or reader studies that would be present for a novel diagnostic algorithm or a device requiring specific performance claims. For a PACS, the "acceptance criteria" are predominantly functional and safety standards, verified through internal engineering and quality assurance processes, rather than clinical efficacy trials.

Ask a specific question about this device