K220105 · DeepHealth, Inc. · QDQ · May 12, 2022 · Radiology
Device Facts
Record ID
K220105
Device Name
Saige-Dx
Applicant
DeepHealth, Inc.
Product Code
QDQ · Radiology
Decision Date
May 12, 2022
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 892.2090
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
AI/ML, Software as a Medical Device, Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K220105 · May 12, 2022
Saige-Dx
DeepHealth, Inc.
Retrospectively collected clinical DBT mammogram exams; Clinical site medical records
Retrospective clinical datasets were used to conduct a multi-reader multi-center (MRMC) reader study and a standalone performance study to validate the device's ability to identify soft tissue lesions and calcifications.
Saige-Dx analyzes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammograms to identify the presence of soft tissue lesions and calcifications that may be indicative of cancer. For a given DBT mammogram, Saige-Dx analyzes the DBT image stacks and the accompanying 2D images, including full field digital mammography and/or synthetic images. The system assigns a Suspicion Level, indicating the strength of suspicion that cancer may be present, for each detected finding and for the entire case. The outputs of Saige-Dx are intended to be used as a concurrent reading aid for interpreting physicians on screening mammograms with compatible DBT hardware.
Device Story
Saige-Dx is a software-based concurrent reading aid for interpreting radiologists. It processes DICOM x-ray mammogram files from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) studies, including DBT image stacks and associated 2D images (FFDM or synthetic). Using AI, it detects soft tissue lesions and calcifications; it generates bounding boxes for findings and assigns a 'Finding Suspicion Level' and an aggregate 'Case Suspicion Level'. Outputs are delivered via DICOM Structured Report (SR) for overlay on viewing workstations and a DICOM Secondary Capture (SC) summary report. Used in clinical settings to assist radiologists in screening mammography; it aims to improve detection performance and reduce reading time. It is an adjunct tool; physicians must perform final review and decision-making.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical evidence includes a multi-reader multi-center (MRMC) study (n=18 radiologists, 240 cases: 100 cancer, 140 non-cancer) and a standalone retrospective study (n=1304 cases: 136 cancer, 1168 non-cancer). In the reader study, AUC increased from 0.865 (unaided) to 0.925 (aided) (p < 0.00001). Sensitivity increased by 8.8% (95% CI: 7.0%, 10.6%); specificity increased by 0.9% (95% CI: -0.9%, 2.7%). Standalone performance showed an AUC of 0.930 (95% CI: 0.902, 0.958). Data was sourced from sites independent of training data.
Technological Characteristics
Software-based medical image analysis device. Processes DICOM DBT image stacks and 2D images. Outputs DICOM SR and SC objects. Operates as a concurrent reading aid. Utilizes proprietary AI algorithms for detection and characterization of breast lesions. Moderate level of concern software.
Indications for Use
Indicated for women 35 years of age or older undergoing screening mammography to identify soft tissue lesions and calcifications indicative of cancer. Not intended to replace physician review or clinical judgment.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A radiological computer-assisted detection and diagnostic software is an image processing device intended to aid in the detection, localization, and characterization of fracture, lesions, or other disease-specific findings on acquired medical images (e.g., radiography, magnetic resonance, computed tomography). The device detects, identifies, and characterizes findings based on features or information extracted from images, and provides information about the presence, location, and characteristics of the findings to the user. The analysis is intended to inform the primary diagnostic and patient management decisions that are made by the clinical user. The device is not intended as a replacement for a complete clinician's review or their clinical judgment that takes into account other relevant information from the image or patient history.
Special Controls
A radiological computer assisted detection and diagnosis software must comply with the following special controls: Design verification and validation must include: 1. i. A detailed description of the image analysis algorithm, including but not limited to a description of the algorithm inputs and outputs, each major component or block, how the algorithm and output affects or relates to clinical practice or patient care, and any algorithm limitations. ii. A detailed description of pre-specified performance testing protocols and dataset(s) used to assess whether the device will provide improved assisted-read detection and diagnostic performance as intended in the indicated user population(s), and to characterize the standalone device performance for labeling. Performance testing includes standalone test(s), side-by-side comparison(s), and/or a reader study, as applicable. iii. Results from standalone performance testing used to characterize the independent performance of the device separate from aided user performance. The performance assessment must be based on appropriate diagnostic accuracy measures (e.g., receiver operator characteristic plot, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic likelihood ratio). Devices with localization output must include localization accuracy testing as a component of standalone testing. The test dataset must be representative of the typical patient population with enrichment made only to ensure that the test dataset contain a sufficient number of cases from important cohorts (e.g., subsets defined by clinically relevant confounders, effect modifiers, concomitant disease, and subsets defined by image acquisition characteristics) such that the performance estimates and confidence intervals of the device for these individual subsets can be characterized for the intended use population and imaging equipment. iv. Results from performance testing that demonstrate that the device provides improved assisted-read detection and/or diagnostic performance as intended in the indicated user population(s) when used in accordance with the instructions for use. The reader population must be comprised of the intended user population in terms of but not limited to clinical training, certification, and years of experience. The performance assessment must be based on appropriate diagnostic accuracy measures (e.g., receiver operator characteristic plot, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic likelihood ratio). Test datasets must meet the requirements described in 1(iii) above. v. Appropriate software documentation, including device hazard analysis, software requirements specification document, software design specification document, traceability analysis, system level test protocol, pass/fail criteria, testing results, and cybersecurity measures. 2. Labeling must include the following: i. A detailed description of the patient population for which the device is indicated for use. ii. A detailed description of the device instructions for use, including the intended reading protocol and how the user should interpret the device output. iii. A detailed description of the intended user, and any user training materials as programs that addresses appropriate reading protocols for the device to ensure that the end user is fully aware of how to interpret and apply the device output. iv. A detailed description of the device inputs and outputs. v. A detailed description of compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols. vi. Warnings, precautions, and limitations must include situations in which the device may fail or may not operate at its expected performance level (e.g., poor image quality or for certain subpopulations), as applicable. vii. A detailed summary of the performance testing, including: test methods, dataset characteristics, results, and a summary of sub-analyses on case distributions stratified by relevant confounders, such as anatomical characteristics, patient demographics and medical history, user experience, and imaging equipment.
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:(1) Design verification and validation must include:
(i) A detailed description of the image analysis algorithm, including a description of the algorithm inputs and outputs, each major component or block, how the algorithm and output affects or relates to clinical practice or patient care, and any algorithm limitations.
(ii) A detailed description of pre-specified performance testing protocols and dataset(s) used to assess whether the device will provide improved assisted-read detection and diagnostic performance as intended in the indicated user population(s), and to characterize the standalone device performance for labeling. Performance testing includes standalone test(s), side-by-side comparison(s), and/or a reader study, as applicable.
(iii) Results from standalone performance testing used to characterize the independent performance of the device separate from aided user performance. The performance assessment must be based on appropriate diagnostic accuracy measures (
*e.g.,* receiver operator characteristic plot, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic likelihood ratio). Devices with localization output must include localization accuracy testing as a component of standalone testing. The test dataset must be representative of the typical patient population with enrichment made only to ensure that the test dataset contains a sufficient number of cases from important cohorts (*e.g.,* subsets defined by clinically relevant confounders, effect modifiers, concomitant disease, and subsets defined by image acquisition characteristics) such that the performance estimates and confidence intervals of the device for these individual subsets can be characterized for the intended use population and imaging equipment.(iv) Results from performance testing that demonstrate that the device provides improved assisted-read detection and/or diagnostic performance as intended in the indicated user population(s) when used in accordance with the instructions for use. The reader population must be comprised of the intended user population in terms of clinical training, certification, and years of experience. The performance assessment must be based on appropriate diagnostic accuracy measures (
*e.g.,* receiver operator characteristic plot, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic likelihood ratio). Test datasets must meet the requirements described in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.(v) Appropriate software documentation, including device hazard analysis, software requirements specification document, software design specification document, traceability analysis, system level test protocol, pass/fail criteria, testing results, and cybersecurity measures.
(2) Labeling must include the following:
(i) A detailed description of the patient population for which the device is indicated for use.
(ii) A detailed description of the device instructions for use, including the intended reading protocol and how the user should interpret the device output.
(iii) A detailed description of the intended user, and any user training materials or programs that address appropriate reading protocols for the device, to ensure that the end user is fully aware of how to interpret and apply the device output.
(iv) A detailed description of the device inputs and outputs.
(v) A detailed description of compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols.
(vi) Warnings, precautions, and limitations must include situations in which the device may fail or may not operate at its expected performance level (
*e.g.,* poor image quality or for certain subpopulations), as applicable.(vii) A detailed summary of the performance testing, including test methods, dataset characteristics, results, and a summary of sub-analyses on case distributions stratified by relevant confounders, such as anatomical characteristics, patient demographics and medical history, user experience, and imaging equipment.
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/0 description: The image shows the logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The logo consists of two parts: the Department of Health & Human Services logo on the left and the FDA logo on the right. The FDA logo is in blue and includes the letters "FDA" followed by the words "U.S. Food & Drug Administration".
DeepHealth, Inc. % B. Nathan Hunt VP, Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs 1000 Massachusetts Avenue CAMBRIDGE MA 01238
May 12, 2022
## Re: K220105
Trade/Device Name: Saige-Dx Regulation Number: 21 CFR 892.2090 Regulation Name: Radiological computer assisted detection and diagnosis software Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: QDQ Dated: May 2, 2022 Received: May 4, 2022
Dear B. Nathan Hunt:
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 and Part 809); 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}------------------------------------------------
2
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
Michael D. O'Hara. Ph.D. Deputy Director DHT8C: Division of Radiological Imaging and Radiation Therapy Devices OHT8: Office of Radiological Health Office of Product Evaluation and Quality Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{2}------------------------------------------------
# Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known) K220105
Device Name Saige-Dx
#### Indications for Use (Describe)
Saige-Dx analyzes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammograms to identify the presence of soft tissue lesions and calcifications that may be indicative of cancer. For a given DBT mammogram, Saige-Dx analyzes the DBT image stacks and the accompanying 2D images, including full field digital mammography and/or synthetic images. The system assigns a Suspicion Level, indicating the strength of suspicion that cancer may be present, for each detected finding and for the entire case. The outputs of Saige-Dx are intended to be used as a concurrent reading aid for interpreting physicians on screening mammograms with compatible DBT hardware.
| Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable) | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| <div> <span> <b> X</b> Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D) </span> </div> | <div> <span> Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C) </span> </div> |
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}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/3/Picture/0 description: The image contains the logo for DeepHealth. On the left side of the logo, there is a stack of three squares, each slightly offset from the one below it. To the right of the squares, the word "DeepHealth" is written in a combination of red and gray. The word "Deep" is in red, while the word "Health" is in gray.
1000 Massachusetts Ave Cambridge. MA 01238 Phone: 424-832-1480 www.deep.health
## K220105 510(k) Summary DeepHealth, Inc. Saige-Dx
In accordance with 21 CFR 807.92 the following summary of information is provided, on this date, May 10, 2022:
#### 1. 510(k) SUBMITTER
DeepHealth, Inc. 1000 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 Tel: 424-832-1480
#### Contact Person:
B. Nathan Hunt Vice President, Quality Assurance and Requlatory Affairs DeepHealth, Inc. 1000 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 Tel: 424-832-1480
#### Date Prepared:
May 10, 2022
#### 2. DEVICE
Trade Name of Device: Saige-Dx
Common or Usual Name: Medical Image Software
Regulation Name and Number: Radiological Computer Assisted Detection and Diagnosis Software (21 CFR 892.2090)
Regulation Class: II
Product Code: QDQ
#### 3. PREDICATE DEVICE
Trade Name: Transpara™
Common Name or Usual Name: Medical Image Software
Regulation Name and Number: Radiological Computer Assisted Detection and Diagnosis Software (21 CFR 892.2090)
Regulation Class: II
Product Code: QDQ
510(K) No .: K181704
{4}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/4/Picture/0 description: The image shows the logo for DeepHealth. The logo consists of a stack of three squares on the left, with the word "DeepHealth" to the right. The word "Deep" is in a dark red color, while the word "Health" is in gray.
1000 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge. MA 01238 Phone: 424-832-1480 www.deep.health
## 4. DEVICE DESCRIPTION
Saige-Dx is a software device that processes screening mammograms using artificial intelligence to aid interpreting radiologists. By automatically detecting the presence or absence of soft tissue lesions and calcifications in mammography images, Saige-Dx can help improve reader performance, while also reducing time. The software takes as input a set of x-ray mammogram DICOM files from a single digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) study and generates finding-level outputs for each image analyzed, as well as an aggregate case-level assessment. Saige-Dx processes both the DBT image stacks and the associated 2D images (full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and/or synthetic 2D images) in a DBT study. For each image, Saige-Dx outputs bounding boxes circumscribing any detected findings and assigns a Finding Suspicion Level to each finding, indicating the degree of suspicion that the finding is malignant. Saige-Dx uses the results of the finding-level analysis to generate a Case Suspicion Level, indicating the degree of suspicion for malignancy across the case. Saige-Dx encapsulates the finding and caselevel results into a DICOM Structured Report (SR) object containing markings that can be overlaid on the original mammogram images using a viewing workstation and a DICOM Secondary Capture (SC) object containing a summary report of the Saige-Dx results.
## 5. INDICATIONS FOR USE
Saige-Dx analyzes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammograms to identify the presence or absence of soft tissue lesions and calcifications that may be indicative of cancer. For a given DBT mammogram, Saige-Dx analyses the DBT image stacks and the accompanying 2D images, including full field digital mammography and/or synthetic images. The system assigns a Suspicion Level, indicating the strength of suspicion that cancer may be present, for each detected finding and for the entire case. The outputs of Saige-Dx are intended to be used as a concurrent reading aid for interpreting physicians on screening mammograms with compatible DBT hardware.
## Intended User Population
The intended users of Saige-Dx are interpreting physicians qualified to read screening mammography exams.
## Intended Patient Populations
The device is intended to be used on women thirty-five (35) years of age or older undergoing screening mammography.
## Warnings and Precautions
Saige-Dx is an adjunct tool and is not intended to replace a physician's own review of a mammogram. Decisions should not be made solely based on analysis by Saige-Dx.
## 6. PREDICATE DEVICE COMPARISON
Saige-Dx and the predicate device have similar indications for use, patient population, technical characteristics, and principles of operation. The differences between Saige-Dx and the predicate device do not alter the suitability or of the subject device for its intended use.
{5}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/5/Picture/0 description: The image shows the logo for DeepHealth. The logo consists of a stack of three squares on the left, with the word "DeepHealth" on the right. The word "Deep" is in red, and the word "Health" is in gray. The squares are also red.
1000 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge. MA 01238 Phone: 424-832-1480 www.deep.health
The devices are intended to be used by physicians to aid in the interpretation of screening mammograms. The devices are not intended to be used as a replacement for a full physician review or their own clinical judgement.
The design of Saige-Dx is similar to that of the predicate device. Both devices detect and characterize findings in radiological breast images and provide information regarding the presence and location of the findings to the user. As both devices use proprietary algorithms, there are assumed differences in the algorithmic components, as well as minor differences in the specific formats of the outputs provided to users.
Non-clinical and clinical testing has been completed ensuring that the differences do not affect the safety and effectiveness of the proposed subject device.
## 7. PERFORMANCE DATA
Saige-Dx is a software device and has been determined of Moderate Level of Concern. Verification testing included software unit testing, software integration testing, and system testing. Testing confirmed that the software, as designed and implemented, satisfies the software requirements.
Validation of the software was performed using two retrospective studies as described below. The data used in the validation testing was obtained from different clinical sites than that used for Saige-Dx Al algorithm training, DeepHealth ensured that there was no overlap between the data used to train and test the Saige-Dx Al algorithm. The data used to train the Saige-Dx algorithm consisted of six datasets across various geographic locations in the US and the UK, including diverse regions such as New York City.
## Performance Testing: Reader Study
A fully balanced, multi-reader multi-center (MRMC) reader study was conducted to evaluate the performance of 18 MQSA qualified radiologists when reading a set of retrospectively collected DBT mammogram exams with and without the aid of Saige-Dx. The primary objective was to compare breast cancer detection performance of radiologists reading with the aid of Saige-Dx versus without Saige-Dx. Each radiologist read 240 cases twice in two reading sessions, once with and once without Saige-Dx, with a washout period of at least 4 weeks in between the two sessions. The mammograms were collected from unique female patients 35 years of age or older according to an IRB approved protocol and were acquired from Hologic equipment. The cases in the study included 100 pathology-proven cancer cases and 140 confirmed non-cancer cases. To provide a mix of cancer cases that might be encountered in clinical practice, 67 of the cancer cases were recalled in clinical practice, indicating the interpreting radiologist detected a suspicion lesion and 33 of the cancer cases were not recalled in clinical practice, indicating the interpreting radiologist did not detect anything suspicious and the cancer was diagnosed at a later time. The patients in the study represented a racially and ethnically diverse population. Testing was also performed on a subgroup representative of the racial distribution of a United States screening population, which also met performance goals.
{6}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/6/Picture/0 description: The image shows the logo for DeepHealth. The logo consists of a stack of three squares on the left, with the word "DeepHealth" on the right. The word "Deep" is in red, and the word "Health" is in gray. The squares are also red.
1000 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge. MA 01238 Phone: 424-832-1480 www.deep.health
Each mammogram included in the study had one ground truth status: cancer or non-cancer, Two MQSA qualified, highly experienced (>10 years in practice) breast imaging specialists participated in establishing the reference standard for cancer and non-cancer exams. For each exam, the truthers confirmed and recorded the cancer status, as well as an interpretation of breast density. For cancer exams, the truthers annotated each malignant lesion on all views where the lesion was visible (based on the biopsied location that led to the malignant pathology) and indicated the lesion type. For exams where there were discrepancies between the two truther's assessment of density, lesion type, and/or lesion location, a third truther served as the adjudicator.
The reader performance increased with the aid of Saige-Dx from an average AUC of 0.865 when unaided to 0.925 when aided (difference of 0.06; 95% Cl: 0.041, 0.079, p < 0.00001). All 18 readers demonstrated an increase in AUC performance when using Saige-Dx. The average reader sensitivity increased by 8.8% (95% Cl: 7.0%, 10.6%). The average reader specificity increased by 0.9% (95% CI: -0.9%, 2.7%).
Similar reader performance trends were observed across breast densities, ages, racelethnicities, lesion types and sizes, and radiologist specialization. For lesion type, the average AUC increased from 0.866 to 0.918 for soft tissue densities and from 0.795 to 0.899 for calcifications. For radiologist specialization, the average AUC for breast imaging specialists increased from 0.885 to 0.931 and from 0.826 to 0.911 for generalists.
## Performance Testing: Standalone Study
A retrospective, blinded, multi-center study was conducted to evaluate the standalone performance of Saige-Dx on DBT mammograms. A total of 1304 cases were collected from 9 clinical sites in the United States, consisting of 136 cancer and 1168 non-cancer cases. The data was collected and truthed using similar procedures to those used for the reader study. All data came from clinical sites that had never been used previously for training or testing of the Saige-Dx AI algorithm. Saige-Dx exhibited an AUC of 0.930 (95% CI: 0.902, 0.958) on the dataset, demonstrating strong performance relative to the unaided reader performance in the reader study. Similar standalone performance trends were observed across breast densities, ages, race/ethnicities, and lesion types and sizes. Saige-Dx was assessed on both recalled and nonrecalled cancers, as well as visible and non-visible cancers.
## 8. CONCLUSION
The non-clinical and clinical testing conducted to support this submission confirm that Saige-Dx is safe and effective. The minor differences, including technological differences, between Saige-Dx and the predicate do not alter the intended use of the device and do not affect its safety and effectiveness when used as labeled. Therefore, the information presented in this 510(k) submission demonstrates that Saige-Dx 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.