LVivo Software Application

K243862

DiA Imaging Analysis Ltd. · cleared 2025-03-17 · product code QIH · Radiology

Premarket evidence — what FDA accepted

Device typesamd
source quote (p.5)
The LVivo platform is a software system for automated analysis of ultrasound examinations.
Algorithmmachine learning algorithm
source quote (p.8)
Yes. Based on the same machine learning algorithm, multiple rocessing steps were added and the calculated features revised
Adaptive (vs locked)FDA source did not state this
PCCPNo
Cybersecurity addressedYes
source quote (p.8)
Risk control measures are identified by the threat models and incorporated into the risk analysis process and SW design. The verification and validation testing including 3rd party libraries vulnerability assessment of the SW (SBOM) to ensure that cybersecurity related design requirement are implemented successfully. The company has defined a Cybersecurity plan for ongoing cybersecurity maintenance.

Validation studies (3)

Bench

sample size not stated

standards: IEC 62304:2006+A1:2015 CSV, Medical Device Software – Software Life-Cycle Processes, IEC 62366-1 Medical devices - Part 1: Application of usability engineering to medical devices, 2015 + AMD 2020., IEC/TR80002-1:2009, Medical device software - Part 1: Guidance on the application of ISO 14971 to medical device software systems, software, and services information

Retrospective clinical

n=170 cases · 3 site(s)

Retrospective clinical

n=101 patients · 1 site(s)

Reported performance (10 observations)

sensitivity0.82
source quote (p.9)
The Specificity and sensitivity of WMSI were 79% and 82% respectively and the accuracy was found to be 82%.
specificity0.79
source quote (p.9)
The Specificity and sensitivity of WMSI were 79% and 82% respectively and the accuracy was found to be 82%.
accuracyas written: “Accuracy0.82
source quote (p.9)
The Specificity and sensitivity of WMSI were 79% and 82% respectively and the accuracy was found to be 82%.
agreement_kappaas written: “ICC (GT vs LVivo SWM)0.85
source quote (p.9)
WMSI 0.85
agreement_kappaas written: “ICC (Expert 1 vs Expert 2)0.64
source quote (p.9)
Expert 1 vs Expert 2 0.64
agreement_kappaas written: “ICC (Expert 1 vs Expert 3)0.74
source quote (p.9)
Expert 1 vs Expert 3 0.74
agreement_kappaas written: “ICC (Expert 2 vs Expert 3)0.81
source quote (p.9)
Expert 2 vs Expert 3 0.81
specificityas written: “Specificity (Second Validation Set)0.82
source quote (p.10)
Specificity 82%
sensitivityas written: “Sensitivity (Second Validation Set)0.82
source quote (p.10)
Sensitivity 82%
accuracyas written: “Accuracy (Second Validation Set)0.82
source quote (p.10)
Accuracy 82%

Each value carries its own analysis unit and task — never compare or pool across devices. Source: 510(k) summary PDF.

Predicate network

Postmarket — what happened after clearance

0
recalls in product code, 24mo
3
MAUDE reports in code, 12mo
vs code's own 3-yr baseline
0
drift signals on this device

Recall and MAUDE counts are product-code-level (reports aren't reliably attributable to one device). Signals are descriptive observables with sources — never a judgment that the device is unsafe or drifting. Snapshot 2026-07-08.

Reimbursement — how devices like this got paid

Not yet tracked — no payment pathway indexed for this clearance (the reimbursement corpus is a growing seed set).

RIGOR™ Precedent · public FDA/CMS data · descriptive decision-support, not regulatory or reimbursement advice. Share this page: radar.healthai.com/precedent/device/K243862