T-200-001 Summary of Clinical Validation of Data Acquisition Digital Health Technology
- Governed by procedure
GP-200 Remote Data Acquisition in Clinical Investigations
- Comes from template
T-200-001 Summary of Clinical Validation of Data Acquisition Digital Health Technology
Identification of the Technology
This summary describes the clinical validation of the Legit.Health Data Acquisition Technology (hereinafter, DAT) in accordance with Guidance FDA-2021-D-1128
for Digital Health Technologies for Remote Data Acquisition in Clinical Investigations to assess how the DAT is fit-for-purpose for use in the clinical investigation.
Design and related technological characteristics
The Legit.Health DAT is a software tool that was designed and developed following IEC 62304:2006 Medical device software — Software life cycle processes
. The life cycle requirements and the set of processes, activities, and tasks described in this standard establish a common framework for medical device software life cycle processes.
The DAT is a computational software-only medical device leveraging computer vision algorithms to process images of the epidermis, the dermis and its appendages, among other skin structures. The DAT comprises several object detection models that are trained for a specific task. For each model, a basic dataset is constructed by taking the images of the desired ICD category from the main image recognition dataset.
The relevant performance attributes are:
Metric | Value |
---|---|
Weight | 33 kilobytes |
Average response time | 1400 miliseconds |
Maximum requests per second | no limit |
Service availability time slot | The service is available at all times |
Service availability rate during its working slot (in % per month) | 100% |
Maximum application recovery time in the event of a failure (RTO/AIMD) | 6 hours |
Maximum data loss in the event of a fault (none, current transaction, day, week, etc.) (RPO/PDMA) | None |
Maximum response time to a transaction | 10 seconds |
Backup device (software, hardware) | Software (AWS S3) |
Backup frequency | 12 hours |
Backup modality | Incremental |
Recomended dimensions of images sent | 10,000px2 |
The following diagram splits each high-level software item into software units that we have identified as indivisible:
The following list shows the documents related to the design and development procedure together with their purpose and intended audience:
Legit.Health Plus description and specifications
- Purpose: to document the device's information and specifications, including the applicable standards;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
R-TF-008-001 GSPR
- Purpose: to evaluate and document the safety and performance requirements applicable to the device and to document how the applicable requirements are implemented;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, clinical team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
Design History File
, comprised of:- Requirements
- Purpose: to document user requirements, software requirement specification, design requirement and regulatory requirements;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Activities
- Purpose: to document the design verification;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Test plans
- Purpose: to document the design verification plans to ensure the device is capable of meeting the requirements established for its intended purpose;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Test runs
- Purpose: to document the design verification results to ensure the device is capable of meeting the requirements established for its intended purpose;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Version release
- Purpose: to document the design transfer to production;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Design stage review
- Purpose: to document the design review at each stage of the design and development process;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- SOUP
- Purpose: to document the SOUP used in the software development, their requirements and any anomalies;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Requirements
R-TF-012-005 Design change control
- Purpose: to document the list of device's version releases and the changes implemented in each release;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, customer success team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
R-TF-012-006 Life cycle plan and report
- Purpose: to define the techniques, tools, resources and activities related to the development of the device to guarantee this development is performed following
UNE-EN 62304:2007/A1:2016 Medical device software. Software life-cycle processes standard
; - Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Purpose: to define the techniques, tools, resources and activities related to the development of the device to guarantee this development is performed following
R-TF-012-007 Formative evaluation plan
,R-TF-012-014 Summative evaluation plan
- Purpose: to document plans for software usability testing according to the requirements set out in
UNE-EN 62366-1:2015/A1:2020 Application of usability engineering to medical devices
; - Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Purpose: to document plans for software usability testing according to the requirements set out in
R-TF-012-008 Formative evaluation report
,R-TF-012-015 Summative evaluation report
- Purpose: to document the results of the software usability testing activities
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
R-TF-012-009 Validation and testing of machine learning models
- Purpose: to define the metrics and methodologies to test the performance of the different machine learning models implemented in the device;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team (especially medical data scientists,
JD-009
), Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
R-TF-012-012 Customers product version control
- Purpose: to monitor and document the device's version used by customers;
- Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, customer success team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
R-TF-013-002 Risk management record
- Purpose: to document the risk management process performed according to the requirements set out in
UNE-EN ISO 14971:2020 Medical devices - Application of risk management to medical devices
; - Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, clinical team, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Purpose: to document the risk management process performed according to the requirements set out in
Legit.Health Plus IFU
- Purpose: to provide the users with all the necessary information according to the requirements set out in
MDR 2017/745, Annex I
for the safe use of the device; - Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, customer success team, clinical team, sales team, intended users, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Purpose: to provide the users with all the necessary information according to the requirements set out in
R-TF-001-008 Legit.Health Plus label
- Purpose: to provide the users with the device's information according to the requirements set out in
MDR 2017/745, Annex I
; - Intended audience: regulatory and quality team, product development team, intended users, Notified Body and internal/external auditors.
- Purpose: to provide the users with the device's information according to the requirements set out in
Relationship between the DAT and the medical device
The Legit.Health DAT is a software tool that is used in clinical research for drug development. The development of the DAT was done in parallel with the development of the Legit.Health Plus device, which is a certified medical device manufactured by the same company. Likewise, the validation of the DAT was done in conjunction with the validation of the Legit.Health Plus device, following ISO 13485:2016
and IEC 62304:2006
. This adds a layer of validation to the DAT, as it was validated in conjunction with the medical device, and is subject to the same quality control and regulatory requirements.
Medical device details
Information | |
---|---|
Device name | Legit.Health Plus (hereinafter, the device) |
Model and type | NA |
Version | 1.0.0.0 |
Basic UDI-DI | 8437025550LegitCADx6X |
Certificate number (if available) | MDR 792790 |
EMDN code(s) | Z12040192 (General medicine diagnosis and monitoring instruments - Medical device software) |
GMDN code | 65975 |
Class | Class IIb |
Classification rule | Rule 11 |
Novel product (True/False) | FALSE |
Novel related clinical procedure (True/False) | FALSE |
SRN | ES-MF-000025345 |
Manufacturer of the Technology
Manufacturer data | |
---|---|
Legal manufacturer name | AI Labs Group S.L. |
Address | Street Gran Vía 1, BAT Tower, 48001, Bilbao, Bizkaia (Spain) |
SRN | ES-MF-000025345 |
Person responsible for regulatory compliance | Alfonso Medela, María Diez, Giulia Foglia |
office@legit.health | |
Phone | +34 638127476 |
Trademark | Legit.Health |
Related Clinical Validation
The clinical validation of the Legit.Health DAT has been published in peer-reviewed journals. The following articles describe the validation of the DAT for different skin conditions:
- Alfonso Medela, Taig Mac Carthy, S. Andy Aguilar Robles, Carlos M. Chiesa-Estomba, Ramon Grimalt, Automatic SCOring of Atopic Dermatitis Using Deep Learning: A Pilot Study, JID Innovations, Volume 2, Issue 3, 2022, 100107, ISSN 2667-0267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjidi.2022.100107.
- Hernández Montilla, I., Medela, A., Mac Carthy, T., Aguilar, A., Gómez Tejerina, P., Vilas Sueiro, A., González Pérez, A. M., Vergara de la Campa, L., Luna Bastante, L., García Castro, R., & Alfageme Roldán, F. (2023). Automatic International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (AIHS4): A novel tool to assess the severity of hidradenitis suppurativa using artificial intelligence. Skin Research and Technology, 29(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.13357
- Taig Mac Carthy, Ignacio Hernández Montilla, Andy Aguilar, Rubén García Castro, Ana María González Pérez, Alejandro Vilas Sueiro, Laura Vergara de la Campa, Fernando Alfageme, Alfonso Medela, Automatic Urticaria Activity Score: Deep Learning–Based Automatic Hive Counting for Urticaria Severity Assessment, JID Innovations, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2024, 100218, ISSN 2667-0267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjidi.2023.100218.
- Hernández Montilla I, Mac Carthy T, Aguilar A, Medela A. Dermatology Image Quality Assessment (DIQA): Artificial intelligence to ensure the clinical utility of images for remote consultations and clinical trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88(4):927-928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2022.11.002
Data output provided
The data is provided to the sponsor according to the Data Transfer Agreement (DTA) which specifies the format, the content, the frequency and the people involved in the data transfer process. In general terms, as is pertains to this scoring system, the keys contained in the data output are:
Key | Description | Type | Example |
---|---|---|---|
isValid | Whether or not the image has enough quality | Boolean | True, false |
qualityScore | Numeric value that represents the quality of the image | Interger | e.g : 75, 80 |
severityScore | Numeric value that represents the severity of the condition according to the scoring system | Interger | e.g : 75, 80 |
visitId | Visit Name | String | |
date | Date performed DD-MMM-YYY | String | |
time | Time performed HH:MM | String | |
imageUid | Unique universal identification of the image | String | e.g. 90925097-820b-403d-a75d-4cd989903df1 |
Overview
The goal of the validation exercise was to establish the accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of the Legit.Health DAT as a tool to measure the clinical event or characteristic of interest: i.e. extent of involvement of psoriasis according to the SALT scoring system
. This validation required an experimental methodology that compared the measured accuracy of the device against a gold standard, as well the performance of the clinicians using the DAT to measure repeatability and reproducibility.
The validation was conducted using Legit.Health, a validated and 21 CFR Part 11 compliant application designed for the purpose of capturing images and measuring the severity of skin conditions.
The gold standard involved n
expert clinicians that evaluated the images and provided the score for the intensity of the clinical signs that comprise the scoring system, according to their medical opinion. The clinicians did not use the DAT during their assessment.
- Number of clinicians:
n
- Number of cases (images):
n
To create the ground-truth, each case was evaluated by all clinicians. This is true for all clinical signs.
Clinical signs
The clinical signs evaluated as part of the scoring system were:
Name | Description | Score range |
---|---|---|
Name | Description | |
Name | Description |
These clinical signs comprise the scoring system i.e. PASI
and are used to evaluate disease progression.
Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility
The performance, effectiveness, and safety of the DAT was evaluated through the following parameters and performance metrics:
Accuracy
Accuracy was measured through Performance metric name (i.e. AUC)
. This metric is key to validating the Legit.Health DAT because reason why the metric is important
. The performance metric
was calculated by explanation on how the performance metric was calculated
:
performance metric |
---|
Results
The detailed results of the accuracy metric are as follows:
Full table of results
Repeatability (intra-rater reliability)
To test repeatability of the DAT, we recorded the results of three clinicians using the DAT independently. A total of 30 images were analysed per technician. The technicians where aided by the DAT and asked to score the severity of the disease, with the help of the output of the DAT.
To measure if the result of each clinician was consistent across multiple instances, we compared the clinician-assigned score with the ground truth score.
Results
The detailed results of the repeatability study are as follows:
Clinician 1
The scores provided by clinician 1 while using the Legit.Health DAT were compared to the ground truth scores:
Clinician-assigned score | Ground truth score | Difference | |
---|---|---|---|
Case 1 | 43 | 43 | 0 |
Case 2 | 12 | 40 | 3 |
Case 3 | 32 | 43 | 0 |
... | ... | ... | ... |
Case 30 | 45 | 45 | 0 |
Mean Differente for Clinician 1: |
---|
Clinician 2
The scores provided by clinician 2 while using the Legit.Health DAT were compared to the ground truth scores:
Clinician-assigned score | Ground truth score | Difference | |
---|---|---|---|
Case 1 | 43 | 43 | 0 |
Case 2 | 12 | 40 | 3 |
Case 3 | 32 | 43 | 0 |
... | ... | ... | ... |
Case 30 | 45 | 45 | 0 |
Mean Differente for Clinician 2: |
---|
Clinician 3
The scores provided by clinician 3 while using the Legit.Health DAT were compared to the ground truth scores:
Clinician-assigned score | Ground truth score | Difference | |
---|---|---|---|
Case 1 | 43 | 43 | 0 |
Case 2 | 12 | 40 | 3 |
Case 3 | 32 | 43 | 0 |
... | ... | ... | ... |
Case 30 | 45 | 45 | 0 |
Mean Differente for Clinician 3: |
---|
Reproducibility (inter-rater reliability)
To test repeatability of the DAT, we recorded the results of three clinicians using the Legit.Health DAT system. A total of 30 images were analysed per clinicians. The %CV (coefficient of variation) was calculated for each sample and averaged across all 30 samples.
Results
The detailed results of the reproducibility study are as follows:
Technician | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 2 | ... | Case 30 | %CV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
User 1 | 43 | 12 | 32 | ... | 45 | |
User 2 | 40 | 15 | 33 | ... | 45 | |
User 3 | 43 | 14 | 33 | ... | 45 |
Overall mean %CV: |
---|
Conclusion
The DAT is fit-for-purpose for use in the clinical investigation.
The measures of i.e. extent of involvement of psoriasis according to the SALT scoring system
by the Legit.Health DAT are considered accurate, reproducible, and validated for use. The DAT produces accurate and reproducible data, is considered to be a validated method, and is suitable for use.
The assessments of accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility using the methods described in the validation plan demonstrate that the DAT produces measurements within acceptable limits of variation.
Confidentiality statement
This document has ben provided as a professional courtesy to Name of the recipient person
of Name of the recipient company
. All the information contained in this document is propietary is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient, limiting the use of the information to the professional relationship between the recipient and Legit.Health.
Approval
The signatures for the approval process of this document can be found in the verified commits at the repository for the QMS. The team members who are expected to participate in this document and their roles in the approval process, as defined in Annex I Responsibility Matrix of the GP-001, are:
- Author: JD-009 Ignacio Hernández
- Reviewer: JD-003 Alfonso Medela
- Approver: JD-001 Andy Aguilar
Signed by:
Signer Name: Andy Aguilar (JD-001 General Manager)
Signing Reason: I approve this document
Signing Time: 23/05/2023 | 9:27:36 PM PDT
7CE73AB2FC2E4D9DA6568C1BE1BA6354