The ADNI dataset was used as an independent, retrospective clinical cohort to validate the performance of the NEUROShield algorithm for hippocampal segmentation against a ground truth established by expert radiologists.
ADNI; Retrospective; Validation; Hippocampus; MRI
Clinical Evidence
Study Design
Population
Comparator
Key Endpoints
ADNI Validation Study; Retrospective, cross-sectional validation study; Follow-up/Duration: Not applicable
280 subjects from ADNI 1 & ADNI 3 datasets, including controls, MCI, and AD patients; Sample Size: 280
Dice score > 0.75, Hausdorff distance < 6.1mm, correlation > 0.82, relative volume difference < 24.6%, mean difference in BA plots < 1010 mm3
Dice score 0.91, Hausdorff distance 3.8 mm
186 cases collected from multiple sites across India (Jan 2020 - Dec 2021).
>1 (subject matter experts)
280 subjects from the ADNI (Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative) dataset (ADNI 1 & ADNI 3).
3 (US Board Certified Radiologists)
Indications for Use
The NEUROShield™ medical image processing software is intended for automatic labelling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of the Hippocampus brain structure from a set of MR images.
Device Story
NEUROShield is a cloud-based, automated brain geometry quantification tool for neurologists and neuroradiologists. It accepts 3D T1-weighted MR images (uncompressed DICOM) as input. Using a locked deep learning algorithm (U-Net architecture), the device performs automated segmentation of the hippocampus, calculates volumetric measurements, and generates reports. The software operates via web browser on off-the-shelf hardware. Physicians review the automated output to assist in clinical decision-making and treatment planning. By replacing manual segmentation processes, the device provides standardized, accelerated volumetric analysis, potentially improving the efficiency and consistency of neuroimaging interpretation for clinical and research purposes.
Clinical Evidence
Analytical validation study using 280 retrospective cases from the ADNI dataset (independent of training data). Ground truth established by 3 US board-certified radiologists using STAPLE algorithm. Primary endpoints included Dice coefficient and Hausdorff distance. Results: Mean Dice coefficient 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90, 0.92) and mean Hausdorff distance 3.8 mm (95% CI: 3.57, 4.06). Subgroup analysis across clinical status (Control, MCI, AD), gender, magnetic field strength (1.5T/3T), slice thickness, and US region confirmed consistent performance, with all metrics meeting pre-defined pass criteria.
Technological Characteristics
Software as a medical device (SaMD) cloud platform. Uses deep learning (U-Net) segmentation. Inputs: 3D T1-weighted DICOM MRI scans. Outputs: Volumetric measurements of the hippocampus. Operates on standard web browsers (Windows/Mac). Locked algorithm. Automated quality control includes scan protocol verification.
Indications for Use
Indicated for automatic labelling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of the Hippocampus brain structure from MR images in patients requiring brain volume assessment.
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}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/0 description: The image contains the logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On the left, there is a symbol representing the Department of Health & Human Services - USA. To the right, the FDA logo is displayed in blue, with the words "U.S. FOOD & DRUG" stacked above the word "ADMINISTRATION". The logo is clean and professional, reflecting the organization's role in regulating food and drugs.
In-Med Prognostics L3C Latha Poonamallee 4918 September Street San Diego, California 92110 September 14, 2023
Re: K220034
Trade/Device Name: NEUROShield Regulation Number: 21 CFR 892.2050 Regulation Name: Medical image management and processing system Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: QIH Dated: June 19, 2023 Received: June 20, 2023
Dear Latha Poonamallee:
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/cfpmn/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
{1}------------------------------------------------
devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see 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.
Robert Sauer Deputy Director OHT8: Office of Radiological Health Office of Product Evaluation and Quality Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration
# Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known) K220034
Device Name
NEUROShield
Indications for Use (Describe)
The NEUROShield™ medical image processing software is intended for automatic labelling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of the Hippocampus brain structure from a set of MR images.
| Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable) | <span> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">X</span> Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D) </span> | <span> Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C) </span> |
|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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](mailto: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."*
| FORM FDA 3881 (6/20) | Page 1 of 1 | PSC Publishing Services (301) 443-6740 EF |
|----------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------|
|----------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------|
{3}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/3/Picture/0 description: The image shows the logo for INMED Prognostics. The logo features the word "INMED" in teal, with a checkmark in orange replacing the "V". Below "INMED" is the word "PROGNOSTICS" in a smaller font size. Underneath that is the tagline "Imagineering Better Health" in an even smaller font size.
Revision: 01
Date: 11 Sept 2023
# 510(k) Summary
# I. Submitter
| Name | In-Med Prognostics L3C |
|------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| Address | 4918 September Street, San Diego, CA 92110, USA |
| Contact Person | Dr. Latha Poonamallee |
| Telephone Number | +1 (906) 231-1135 |
| Email | drlatha@inmed.ai |
# II. Device
| Device Trade Name | NEUROShield™ |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
| Common Name | Medical Image Processing Software |
| Classification Name | Medical image management and processing system |
| Regulation Number | 21 CFR 892.2050 |
| Regulation Description | Picture archiving and communications system |
| Product Code | QIH |
| Classification Panel | Radiology |
#### III. Predicate Device:
| Device | NeuroQuant |
|---------------|--------------------|
| 510(k) Number | K170981 |
| Manufacturer | CorTechs Labs, Inc |
| Product Code: | LLZ |
#### IV. Device Description:
NEUROShield™ is a fully automated brain geometry-based quantifying analytics tool/cloud platform that uses Al/Deep Net to support physicians as a clinical decision support tool for neurologists and neuroradiologists.
NEUROShield™ takes 3D MR images as input and calculates brain volumes that can assist physicians in devising optimal treatment plans. The Al tool branded as NEUROShield™ provides volumetric measurements of the Hippocampus brain structure. It replaces time-consuming manual processes
{4}------------------------------------------------
with leading-edge automated technology that accelerates the analysis for clinical and research purposes. Brain Volume Quantification is a wellestablished methodology for differential and enhanced interpretation of medical images.
We are using a locked algorithm, and any proposed modifications will be submitted to the FDA for review.
#### V. Indications for Use:
The NEUROShield™ medical image processing software is intended for automatic labelling, visualization, and volumetric quantification of the Hippocampus brain structure from a set of MR images.
# VI. Comparison of Technological Characteristics with the Predicate Device:
| Feature | Subject Device | Predicate Device |
|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Device Name | NEUROShield™ | NeuroQuant |
| Organization | In Med Prognostics L3C | CorTechs Labs, Inc |
| Classification | Class II | Class II |
| Product Code | QIH | LLZ |
| Indications for Use | Automatic labelling,<br>visualization, and volumetric<br>quantification of the<br>Hippocampus brain structure<br>from a set of MR images. | Automatic labelling, visualization<br>and volumetric quantification of<br>segmentable brain structures<br>and lesions from a set of MR<br>images. Volumetric data may be<br>compared to reference<br>percentile data. |
| Design and<br>Incorporated<br>Technology | • Software as a medical<br>device to be used in the<br>process of Imaging and<br>quantification of the<br>Hippocampus brain<br>structure from a set of MR<br>images.<br>• Fully automated brain<br>geometry-based quantifying<br>analytics tool/cloud platform<br>developed using DeepNet /<br>U-Net methodologies. | • Automated measurement of<br>brain tissue volumes and<br>structures and lesions<br>• Automatic segmentation and<br>quantification of brain structures<br>using a dynamic probabilistic<br>neuroanatomical atlas, with age<br>and gender specificity, based on<br>the MR image intensity. |
| Physical<br>Characteristics | • Software package<br>(accessible via web browser)<br>• Operates on off-the-shelf<br>hardware (multiple vendors) | • Software package<br>• Operates on off-the-shelf<br>hardware (multiple vendors) |
| Operating System | Supports Windows and Mac<br>OS latest (No older than<br>Catalina) | Supports Linux, Mac OS X and<br>Windows. |
| Processing<br>Architecture | An automated internal<br>pipeline that performs:<br>- segmentation<br>- volume calculation<br>- report generation | Automated internal pipeline that<br>performs:<br>- artifact correction<br>- segmentation<br>- lesion quantification |
| - volume calculation<br>- report generation | | |
| Feature | Subject Device | Predicate Device |
| Data Source • | • MRI scanner: 3D T1 MRI<br>scans acquired with specified<br>protocols<br>• NEUROShield requires<br>uncompressed DICOM files<br>as input. | • MRI scanner: 3D T1 MRI<br>scans acquired with specified<br>protocols • NeuroQuant<br>Supports DICOM format as input |
| Output | Provides volumetric<br>measurements of<br>Hippocampus brain structure. | Provides volumetric<br>measurements of brain<br>structures and lesions.<br>Includes segmented color<br>overlays and morphometric<br>reports<br>• Automatically compares results<br>to reference percentile data and<br>to prior scans when available<br>• Supports DICOM format as<br>output of results that can be<br>displayed on DICOM<br>workstations and Picture Archive<br>and Communications Systems |
| Safety | • Automated quality control<br>functions<br>- Scan protocol verification<br><br>• Results must be reviewed<br>by a trained physician. | • Automated quality control<br>functions<br>- Tissue contrast check<br>- Scan protocol verification<br>- Atlas alignment check<br><br>• Results must be reviewed by a<br>trained physician. |
{5}------------------------------------------------
#### VII. Performance Testing:
NEUROShield is a machine learning/deep learning algorithm-based device. This algorithm was developed by training the Deep Net Segmentation Models with the help of the training set.
#### Specifications of the Training dataset
Data was collected from multiple sites across India, between January 2020 to December 2021.
The dataset of 186 cases, which was used for training, was carefully gathered and brought together by studying several factors such as variance, Tesla-strength (1.5T, 3T), qualities of image and equipment manufacturers. The collected data was prepared as the ground truth by manual segmentation of the Hippocampus structure by subject matter experts, and this was used as an input to the deep net Segmentation Model.
The table below provides the categorization of subjects.
{6}------------------------------------------------
| Subgroups | | Count |
|----------------------------|------------------|-------|
| | Healthy controls | 186 |
| Magnetic field<br>strength | 1.5T | 109 |
| | 3 T | 77 |
| Slice thickness | 1 | 81 |
| | 1.2 | 50 |
| | 2 | 7 |
| | 2.2 | 48 |
| Equipment<br>Manufacturers | GE | 57 |
| | Siemens | 112 |
| | Philips | 17 |
#### Validation Study:
NEUROShield's performance was evaluated by a validation study summarized as follows:
# A. Data Description:
The performance testing/ validation dataset was collected from the publicly available ADNI (Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative) dataset. This dataset is independent of the training data and was not used to develop the NEUROShield's algorithm.
- Data Size: 280 subjects ●
- Study Type: Analytical & Cross-Sectional ●
- Data collection type: Retrospective ●
- Data Sampling: Stratified Random Sampling .
- Recruitment factors: ADNI 1 & ADNI 3 dataset (Alzheimer's Disease ● Neuroimaging Initiative)
- MRI Equipment manufacturers: GE medical systems, Philips medical systems, ● Siemens Healthineers.
- Magnetic Field Strength: 1.5 & 3 T ●
- MRI Sequences/ protocol: 3D T1 MPRAGE ●
- . Slice thickness: 1, 1.2
- Approximately equal geographical distribution in USA: East coast, Central US ● regions, West coast.
The distribution for age bands is as follows:
| Age group | Count |
|-----------|-------|
| 55-64 | 109 |
| 65-69 | 56 |
| 70-74 | 50 |
| 75-79 | 29 |
| 80-84 | 20 |
| 85-90 | 16 |
{7}------------------------------------------------
The mean age of subjects was found to be 68 ± 8.3 years.
| | Subgroups | Count | Mean (mL) | Standard deviation (mL) |
|-------------------------|--------------|-------|-----------|-------------------------|
| Clinical Sub-groups | ADNI-control | 140 | 6.8 | 1 |
| | ADNI-MCI | 70 | 6.6 | 1.1 |
| | ADNI-AD | 70 | 5.5 | 1.1 |
| Gender | Male | 140 | 6.6 | 1.1 |
| | Female | 140 | 6.2 | 1.3 |
| Magnetic field strength | 1.5T | 139 | 6.2 | 1.2 |
| | 3 T | 141 | 6.7 | 1.1 |
| Slice thickness | 1 | 118 | 6.7 | 1 |
| | 1.2 | 162 | 6.2 | 1.2 |
| US Region | East | 100 | 6.5 | 1.2 |
| | West | 87 | 6.3 | 1.3 |
| | Central | 93 | 6.5 | 1 |
The table below provides the categorization of subjects according to selection criteria:
# B. Ground Truth:
- 1. 3 US Board Certified Radiologists performed manual segmentation of 280 subjects' MRI Brain scans using a widely accepted segmentation guideline method. This ground truth was combined into one tracing per case by the STAPLE (Simultaneous Truth and Performance Level Estimation) algorithm. The STAPLE-derived ground truth was then compared with segmentation provided by each radiologist and statistical tests were performed to ensure the validity of ground truth.
- 2. NEUROShield™ algorithm provided automated segmentation for the Hippocampus brain structure with markings and labelling on all subjects using algorithms and performed segmentation and computed volumes.
# C. Statistical Analysis:
- 1. Validation of Ground Truth: Ground truth validation using 3 radiologist segmentations was performed by comparing the segmentations obtained by these radiologists with the STAPLE annotations, utilizing Dice coefficient, sensitivity, specificity and Hausdorff distance.
Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the ground truth and radiologist segmentations (p > 0.05) for all comparisons, supporting the reliability of the ground truth annotations and the consistency of the radiologist segmentations.
- 2. Geometric comparison of NEUROShield™ with Ground Truth: Ground Truth was compared with the segmentation output generated by NEUROShield™ and validated using Dice score and Hausdorff distance. NEUROShield passed the criteria for both statistical methods.
{8}------------------------------------------------
- 3. Quantitative Comparison of volumes of NEUROShield™ (NS) with Ground Truth: STAPLE-derived ground truth building on the three US Board Certified Radiologists' provided segmentations was used to calculate the volume of the Hippocampus brain structure for all the cases. ITK Snap was used for this purpose. These volumes were compared with the volumes computed by NEUROShield™ using correlation analysis, Bland-Altman plots, and relative volume difference. NEUROShield passed the criteria for all three of the statistical methods, showing correspondence between NEUROShield™ volume and STAPLE volume.
- 4. Pass/fail criteria: The pass/fail criteria were defined by selecting thresholds for each measure and performing hypothesis testing for the same. The thresholds for Dice score and Hausdorff distance are 75% and 6.1mm respectively, whereas for correlation and relative volume difference the passing criteria was defined as 0.82 and 24.6% respectively. For mean difference in BA plots, the threshold selected for total hippocampus was 1010 mm3
- 5. Subgroup Error Analysis: For all the different subgroups, like magnetic field strength, gender, slice thickness, clinical subgroups and US geographical regions, the dice score values were above 90% and Hausdorff distance was less than 4 mm which represents a high level of accuracy of NEUROShield™ Hippocampus segmentation. Furthermore, NEUROShield™ passes the criteria both for correlation and relative volume differences for different subgroups.
# D. Results:
- 1. The average dice coefficient and Hausdorff distance was found to be 0.91 and 3.8 mm respectively. The following table shows the 95% confidence interval for both.
| Measure | Threshold | NEUROShield™ 95 %<br>confidence intervals | Criteria<br>(Pass/Fail) |
|--------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Dice | 0.75 | (0.90, 0.92) | Pass |
| Hausdorff distance | 6.1 | (3.57, 4.06) | Pass |
- 2. The outcomes of subgroup error analysis are as follows:
| | Dice score | | | Hausdorff distance (mm) | | |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|-------------------------|--------------|--------------|
| Clinical subgroups | Control | MCI | AD | Control | MCI | AD |
| Measured value | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.9 | 3.77 | 3.43 | 4.3 |
| NEUROShieldTM 95 % confidence intervals | (0.9, 0.92) | (0.91, 0.93) | (0.88, 0.91) | (3.42, 4.13) | (3.03, 3.82) | (3.75, 4.85) |
| Criteria | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
#### a) Clinical subgroups:
{9}------------------------------------------------
# b) Gender:
| | Dice score | | Hausdorff distance (mm) | |
|-------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------------------|------------|
| Gender | Female | Male | Female | Male |
| Measured value | 0.91 | 0.91 | 3.92 | 3.71 |
| NEUROShield™ 95 %<br>confidence intervals | (0.90,0.92) | (0.90,0.92) | (3.5,4.3) | (3.4,4.02) |
| Criteria | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
# c) Magnetic field strength:
| | Dice score | | Hausdorff distance (mm) | |
|----------------------------------------------|-------------|--------------|-------------------------|--------------|
| MRI strength | 3T | 1.5T | 3T | 1.5T |
| Measured value | 0.92 | 0.9 | 3.66 | 3.9 |
| NEUROShield™<br>95 % confidence<br>intervals | (0.92,0.93) | (0.89, 0.91) | (3.36, 3.96) | (3.59, 4.37) |
| criteria | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
# d) Slice thickness:
| | Dice score | | Hausdorff distance (mm) | |
|----------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------|-------------------------|-------------|
| slice thickness | 1 mm | 1.2mm | 1 mm | 1.2mm |
| Average value | 0.92 | 0.9 | 3.5 | 4 |
| NEUROShield™<br>95 % confidence<br>intervals | (0.92,0.93) | (0.89,0.91) | (3.21, 3.8) | (3.68,4.41) |
| criteria | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
# e) US geographical regions:
| | Dice score | | | Hausdorff distance | | |
|------------------|------------|---------|------------|--------------------|---------|------------|
| Region | East US | West US | Central US | East US | West US | Central US |
| Average<br>value | 0.91 | 0.9 | 0.92 | 3.78 | 3.94 | 3.73 |
{10}------------------------------------------------
| 95 %<br>confidence<br>intervals | (0.9, 0.92) | (0.88, 0.91) | (0.91, 0.93) | (3.37, 4.19) | (3.43, 4.45) | (3.38, 4.09) |
|---------------------------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|--------------|
| Criteria | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
The analysis of Neuroshield hippocampus segmentation revealed that the overall dice score values were above 90% and Hausdorff distance consistently below 4mm, reflecting a remarkable level of accuracy. These findings affirm the precision in both correlation and relative volume differences for segmenting hippocampal structures.
# VIII. Conclusions:
This comprehensive evaluation demonstrates the reliability and effectiveness of NeuroShield in hippocampal segmentation. The assessment concludes that Neuroshield is a highly accurate device/tool for its intended use, thereby promising significant contributions to neuroimaging research and clinical applications.
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.