Clarius Ejection Fraction AI

K253593

Clarius Mobile Health Corp. · cleared 2026-03-02 · product code QIH · Radiology

Premarket evidence — what FDA accepted

Device typesimd
source quote (p.6)
Clarius Ejection Fraction AI is not a stand-alone software device.
Algorithmdeep learning image segmentation algorithm
source quote (p.6)
using a deep learning image segmentation algorithm.
Adaptive (vs locked)No
source quote (p.9)
utilizing non-adaptive machine learning algorithms
PCCPYes
source quote (p.1)
FDA's substantial equivalence determination also included the review and clearance of your Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP).
Cybersecurity addressedYes
source quote (p.11)
Cybersecurity and vulnerability analyses were conducted, and it has been determined that Clarius conforms to the cybersecurity requirements by implementing a process of preventing unauthorized access, modifications, misuse or denial of use, or the unauthorized use of information that is stored, accessed or transferred from a medical device to an external recipient.

Validation studies (2)

Retrospective clinical

n=279 other

endpoints: determine whether Clarius Ejection Fraction AI measurements are non-inferior to those obtained manually by human experts/qualified ultrasound users by determining if the magnitude of the mean absolute difference between Clarius Ejection Fraction AI and mean reviewer measurements is greater than the magnitude of the mean absolute difference among reviewers themselves; determine the correlation between Clarius Ejection Fraction AI predictions and those of human experts among the different Clarius scanner models

standards: IEC 62304:2006 + A1:2015, ISO 14971:2019, IEC 62366-1:2015 + A1:2020, ISO 15223-1:2021

Bench

sample size not stated

endpoints: determine if it performs as intended in a representative user environment, meets the product requirements, is clinically usable, and meets users’ needs for use in semi-automated measurements of the left ventricular ejection fraction

Reported performance (1 observation)

agreement_kappaas written: “Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) AI_EF vs. Mean_Reviewers0.78CI [0.71 0.83]
source quote (p.15)
AI_EF vs. Mean_Reviewers 0.78 [0.71 0.83]

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/K253593