Authorized purpose: Tags screening cases as suspicious or blank to aid worklist prioritization; radiologists must review every examination and it does not mark original images.
Evidence status: each field states its source quality, applicability, and review date. Research pending, information not established, and vendor documentation pending remain distinct outcomes.
Product overview
Start with the essentials
Authorized purpose: Tags screening cases as suspicious or blank to aid worklist prioritization; radiologists must review every examination and it does not mark original images.
Overview status: Source-reviewed overview
What does this software do?Authorized purpose: Tags screening cases as suspicious or blank to aid worklist prioritization; radiologists must review every examination and it does not mark original images.
Which images or clinical context are in scope?Modality: Mammography/DBT Anatomy or clinical context: Breast Input: Compatible FFDM and DBT DICOM screening examinations; validation population was women aged 35 years and older.
Who uses it?Intended users: Radiologists interpreting screening breast examinations.
What does the software produce?Output: Suspicious or blank worklist tag, a nondiagnostic Secondary Capture preview and Structured Report.
What is its most important limitation?Key limitation: Passive triage only: it cannot remove cases, is not standalone, and output does not annotate original diagnostic images.
Clinical takeaway
Clinical role: Tags screening cases as suspicious or blank to aid worklist prioritization; radiologists must review every examination and it does not mark original images.
Evidence takeaway
Evidence from the reviewed source record: Retrospective blinded standalone evidence is exact-submission regulatory evidence; vendor marketing numbers were not substituted for FDA endpoints.
Clinical details
What this tool is for
Start with the authorized purpose, then verify how it fits your service line and reading workflow.
Exact purpose
Tags screening cases as suspicious or blank to aid worklist prioritization; radiologists must review every examination and it does not mark original images.
The FDA listing establishes the regulatory identity. It does not by itself establish local workflow fit, pricing, security, or performance in your environment.
Local acceptance testing, production monitoring, drift review, update control, and incident escalation require a current vendor and site-specific governance plan.
Family DICOM integration
Current AI Suite materials describe PACS/RIS DICOM integration.
Metrics are shown only when they are tied to a source, endpoint, population, and tested product version. Candidate literature without exact product and version linkage is not shown as product evidence.
Evidence summary
Retrospective blinded standalone evidence is exact-submission regulatory evidence; vendor marketing numbers were not substituted for FDA endpoints.
These are common procurement questions; unknown values remain visible until a source supports them.
Pricing and total cost
Not established in reviewed sources
Reviewed sources checked
Exact product version
Checked 2026-09-06
Reimbursement and coding
Research pending
Needs research
Exact FDA submission
Checked 2026-09-06
No applicable payer policy reviewed.
Safety and lifecycle
Postmarket record
Recall and adverse-event records are shown only after product matching. Adverse-event reports do not establish incidence or causality.
Postmarket safety review
Not established in reviewed sources
Reviewed sources checked
Exact FDA submission
Checked 2026-09-04
No native submission-identifier match was found in the checked openFDA radiology recall snapshot. Product-name, manufacturer, and adverse-event searches remain necessary; this does not establish that no recall or safety report exists.
Buyer worksheet
Open questions to take to the vendor
Verify security and privacy controls.
Verify training.
Verify pricing and total cost.
Verify reimbursement and coding relevance: No applicable payer policy reviewed.
Verify local validation and lifecycle monitoring: Local acceptance testing, production monitoring, drift review, update control, and incident escalation require a current vendor and site-specific governance plan.
Verify recalls and postmarket safety signals: No native submission-identifier match was found in the checked openFDA radiology recall snapshot. Product-name, manufacturer, and adverse-event searches remain necessary; this does not establish that no recall or safety report exists.
This audit distinguishes completed source review from fields that have not yet been researched.
Human reviewedStatus
2026-09-06Last searched
24Fields reviewed
9Source classes checked
0Screened PubMed leads
0Screened trial leads
0Unreviewed FDA recall leads
No stored literature or trial candidates; empty metadata snapshots were screened. The current discovery snapshot contains 0 PubMed and 0 ClinicalTrials.gov candidate records; its dated, count-matched human screening remains current. Unlinked candidates remain quarantined. Native FDA recall identifiers produced 0 postmarket candidate records; 0 have been reviewed (0 published, 0 rejected) and 0 remain unreviewed.
Candidate leads were screened against the exact product and tested version. Unlinked records remain quarantined.
Source classes: fda ai list, acr ai central product, fda decision summary, vendor product page, literature index, trial registry, pubmed, clinical trials, openfda device recall
Sources & history
How this profile was documented
Open the ledger for source dates, scope, and research-record updates.
View source ledger and history8 sources - 3 history items
The VinDr-Mammo is a passive notification for prioritization-only, a parallel- workflow software tool used by MQSA qualified interpreting physicians to prioritize patients with...