RMSD between AutoEF and reference method met predetermined acceptance criteria.
Primary endpoint (best available view combination) met acceptance criteria; AP4 view met acceptance criteria; AP2 and PLAX views did not meet acceptance criteria.
—
—
Pivotal clinical investigation comparing AutoEF to conventional EF calculation methods.
>1 (expert readers)
Image View and Mode Identification
—
PPV > 97% for identification of imaging mode and view; sensitivity > 90% across views and imaging mode.
PPV point estimates > 97%; sensitivity point estimates > 90%.
—
—
Clip Annotator study.
>1 (expert readers)
Indications for Use
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction software is used to process previously acquired transthoracic cardiac ultrasound images, to store images, and to manipulate and make measurements on images using an ultrasound device, personal computer, or a compatible DICOM-compliant PACS system in order to provide automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction. This measurement can be used to assist the clinician in a cardiac evaluation.
Device Story
Software processes previously acquired transthoracic cardiac ultrasound images to estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). Machine learning algorithms select appropriate image clips from apical four-chamber, apical two-chamber, or parasternal long-axis views; perform EF calculations; and output an EF percentage with a confidence metric. Used in clinical settings on ultrasound devices, PCs, or DICOM-compliant PACS systems. Clinicians review the automated output and confidence metric to assist in cardiac evaluation; they retain the ability to verify, accept, or reject the automated estimation. Benefits include providing quantitative assessment to support clinical decision-making.
Clinical Evidence
Pivotal clinical investigation compared AutoEF calculations to conventional methods. Primary endpoint (RMSD) for best available view combination met acceptance criteria. Secondary testing of view combinations (AP2, AP4, PLAX) met criteria. Single-view AP4 performance was superior to physician visual assessment. AP2 and PLAX single-view results performed superior to sonographer biplane tracing before cardiologist overread. Clip Annotator study showed >97% PPV for imaging mode/view identification and >90% sensitivity. Confidence metric functionality verified error range estimation.
Technological Characteristics
Software-based image processing using machine learning algorithms. Operates on ultrasound devices, PCs, or DICOM-compliant PACS. Performs automated clip selection and EF calculation. Features include confidence metric estimation. Software developed under design controls with unit, module, and system-level verification.
Indications for Use
Indicated for use in adult patients to provide automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction from transthoracic cardiac ultrasound images.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A medical image management and processing system is a device that provides one or more capabilities relating to the review and digital processing of medical images for the purposes of interpretation by a trained practitioner of disease detection, diagnosis, or patient management. The software components may provide advanced or complex image processing functions for image manipulation, enhancement, or quantification that are intended for use in the interpretation and analysis of medical images. Advanced image manipulation functions may include image segmentation, multimodality image registration, or 3D visualization. Complex quantitative functions may include semi-automated measurements or time-series measurements.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls; voluntary standards—Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Std., Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) Std., Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) Test Pattern).
{0}------------------------------------------------
July 22, 2020
Image /page/0/Picture/1 description: The image contains the logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On the left is the Department of Health & Human Services logo. To the right of that is the FDA logo, which is a blue square with the letters "FDA" in white. To the right of the blue square is the text "U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION" in blue.
Caption Health % Mr. Sam Surette Head of RA/QA 2000 Sierra Point Pkwy, 8th Floor BRISBANE CA 94005
Re: K200621
Trade/Device Name: Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software Regulation Number: 21 CFR 892.2050 Regulation Name: Picture archiving and communications system Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: QIH Dated: June 24, 2020 Received: June 24, 2020
Dear Mr. Surette:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. Although this letter refers to your product as a device, please be aware that some cleared products may instead be combination products. The 510(k) Premarket Notification Database located at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmp/pmn.cfm identifies combination product submissions. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part 801); medical device reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803) for devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see
{1}------------------------------------------------
https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/guidance-regulatory-information/postmarketing-safety-reportingcombination-products); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820) for devices or current good manufacturing practices (21 CFR 4, Subpart A) for combination products; and, if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-safety/medical-device-reportingmdr-how-report-medical-device-problems.
For comprehensive regulatory information about medical devices and radiation-emitting products, including information about labeling regulations, please see Device Advice (https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance) and CDRH Learn (https://www.fda.gov/training-and-continuing-education/cdrh-learn). Additionally, you may contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE) to ask a question about a specific regulatory topic. See the DICE website (https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-advice-comprehensive-regulatoryassistance/contact-us-division-industry-and-consumer-education-dice) for more information or contact DICE by email (DICE@fda.hhs.gov) or phone (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100).
Sincerely,
For
Thalia T. Mills, Ph.D. Director Division of Radiological Health OHT7: Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health Office of Product Evaluation and Quality Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
## 510(k) Number (if known)
### K200621
Device Name
Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software
Indications for Use (Describe)
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction software is used to process previously acquired transthoracic cardiac ultrasound images, to store images, and to manipulate and make measurements on images using an ultrasound device, personal computer, or a compatible DICOM-compliant PACS system in order to provide automated estimation of left ventricular ejection. This measurement can be used to assist the clinician in a cardiac evaluation.
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software is indicated for use in adult patients.
## Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable)
□ Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C) � Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D)
# CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE PAGE IF NEEDED.
This section applies only to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
## *DO NOT SEND YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE PRA STAFF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW.*
The burden time for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed and complete and review the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
> Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Office of Chief Information Officer Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Staff PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov
"An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number."
{3}------------------------------------------------
#### 510(k) SUMMARY K200621 Caption Health Inc.'s
### Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software
### Submitter's Name, Address, Telephone Number, Contact Person
Caption Health, Inc. 2000 Sierra Point Parkway, 8th Floor Brisbane, CA 94005
Contact Person: Sam Surette, Head of RA/QA
Phone: 415 671 4711 email: sam@captionhealth.com
Date Prepared: June 24, 2020
### Name of Device
Common or Usual Name: Picture Archival and Communications Systems Workstation
Proprietary Name: Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software
Classification Name: 21 CFR § 892.2050
Regulatory Class: II
Product Code: QIH, Automated Radiological Image Processing Software
#### Predicate Device
Bay Labs, Inc. EchoMD Automated Ejection Fraction Software (K173780)
#### Device Description
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software applies machine learning algorithms to process echocardiography images in order to calculate left ventricular ejection fraction. Caption Interpretation AutoEF performs left ventricular ejection fraction measurements using the apical four chamber, apical two chamber or parasternal long-axis cardiac ultrasound views or a combination of those views. The software selects the image clips to be used, performs the AutoEF calculation, and forwards the results to the desired destination for clinician viewing. The output of the program is the
{4}------------------------------------------------
Ejection Fraction estimate stated as a percentage, along with an indications of confidence regarding that estimate.
## Intended Use / Indications for Use
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction software is used to process previously acquired transthoracic cardiac ultrasound images, to store images, and to manipulate and make measurements on images using an ultrasound device, personal computer, or a compatible DICOM-compliant PACS system in order to provide automated estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction. This measurement can be used to assist the clinician in a cardiac evaluation.
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software is indicated for use in adult patients.
The intended use/indications for use statement has been slightly updated compared to the predicate device in order to acknowledge that the software may be located on an ultrasound device in addition to personal computer or PACS system. This minor adjustment in indications for use does not alter the intended use of the product and is substantially equivalent to the predicate.
# Summary of Technological Characteristics
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software is an updated version of the predicate device and features very similar technological characteristics. Both products use machine learning algorithms to select clips from those available and for producing an estimation of ejection fraction. Caption Interpretation AutoEF can estimate ejection from a wider range of views, and minor modifications have been made to the methodology for selecting clips. The algorithms for estimating ejection fraction have been further optimized though additional training. None of the differences raise different questions of safety or effectiveness and available data demonstrate that Caption Interpretation performs in a substantially equivalent manner.
# Performance Data
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software was developed and tested in accordance with Caption Health's Design Control processes and has been subjected to extensive safety and performance testing. Software verification and validation test results established that the device meets its design requirements and intended use. Specifically, software verification was conducted at unit, module, and system integration levels. Extensive algorithm development and software verification testing assessed the performance of the software's image video clip selection function, performance characteristics of the algorithm including AutoEF accuracy, risk management, and overall functional performance. Images and cases used for verification testing were carefully separated from training algorithms.
In addition, AutoEF has undergone multiple tests and studies to demonstrate the acceptable performance. A Clip Annotator study verified the ability of the software to receive, annotate and select clips for interpretation by the AutoEF Calculation Service. Results of the Clip Annotator were compared
{5}------------------------------------------------
to evaluation by a panel of expert readers. That study met the pre-defined acceptance criteria and found that the observed PPV point estimates for the Clip Annotator were greater than 97% for identification of the imaging mode and the view. Similarly, observed sensitivity point estimates were greater than 90% across views and imaging mode.
Caption Interpretation AutoEF was also the subject of a pivotal clinical investigation to validate successful performance of the EF calculation in comparison to conventional EF calculation methods. This testing showed that AutoEF, including clip selection and calculation together, performs as expected and in a manner that is substantially equivalent to the predicate device. Specifically, the primary endpoint evaluating the relationship (RMSD) between AutoEF derived values based on the best available view combination and the reference method met the predetermined acceptance criteria. Secondary hypothesis testing evaluating combinations of views (i.e., EF estimation based on two or more views of AP2, AP4 or PLAX) met the same predetermined acceptance criteria. Single-view EF estimation based on the AP4 view was also observed to be less than the acceptance criterion, and superior to physicians in making a qualitative and quantitative visual assessment. The AP2 and PLAX views observed results did not meet the acceptance criteria, but performed superior on a quantitative visual assessment. Furthermore, the AP2-only and PLAX-only RMSD was observed to be lower than the RMSD of sonographers' biplane tracing before a cardiologist overread.
Finally, testing of the confidence metric functionality verified successful performance of the Confidence Metric in estimating the error range of the EF estimates around the reference EF with evidence that the difference between the estimated EF and the reference EF is normally distributed.
Taken together, the performance testing demonstrates that the Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software performs as expected and in a manner that is substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
## Conclusions
The Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Fraction Software has the same intended use and nearly identical indications compared to the predicate device. In addition, the two products have very similar technological characteristics and principles of operation. The minor differences in the indications for use statements of the two devices do not change the intended use. In addition, the only notable technological differences between the Caption Interpretation AutoEF and its predicate do not present any new issues of safety or effectiveness because in both cases the key question is whether the EF output of the respective systems is sufficiently accurate and whether the user can review the results to determine whether they are adequate for clinical use. In both cases the systems provide the user with multiple methods to verify the acceptability of image clips used for processing and multiple methods to accept or reject the automated EF estimation. Additionally, the extensive performance testing of the software demonstrates that these differences do not raise any new types of safety or effectiveness questions. Thus, the Caption Interpretation Automated Ejection Software is substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.