Search Results

The Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA kit is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for the qualitative presumptive detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. This ELISA should only be used for patients with signs and symptoms that are consistent with Lyme disease. Equivocal or positive results must be supplemented by testing with a standardized Western blot procedure. Positive supplemental results are supportive evidence of exposure to B. burgdorferi and can be used to support a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA test is an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay to detect IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Purified Borrelia burgdorferi antigen is attached to a solid phase microtiter well. Pretreated test sera is added to each well. If the antibodies are present that recognize the antigen, they will bind to the antigen in the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound antibody. An enzyme labeled anti-human IgM is added to each well. If antibody is present it will bind to the antibody attached to the antigen on the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound conjugate. A substrate solution is added to each well. If enzyme is present the substrate will undergo a color change. After an incubation period the reaction is stopped and the color intensity is measured photometrically, producing an indirect measurement of specific antibody in the patient specimen.

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding the Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA Test Kit, structured according to your request.

Device Name: Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA Test Kit

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

It's important to note that the provided documents do not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as clear pass/fail thresholds. Instead, they present performance characteristics from various studies. Based on the provided data, I have inferred what could be considered the reported performance of the device in these studies.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Study 1 (CDC Lyme Disease Serum Panel):
  • Sample Size: 47 serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Obtained from the CDC, characterized (masked), origin not specified, but typically such panels would represent a diverse set of patients. This is likely a retrospective panel.
• Study 2 (Clinical Lab Sera):
  • Sample Size: 176 fresh sera.
  • Data Provenance: Patients from a "large clinical lab" submitted for B. burgdorferi antibody testing. The term "fresh sera" suggests a more prospective collection in a clinical setting at that time. The country of origin is not specified but is implied to be within the US given the submission to the FDA.
• Study 3 (Precision Study):
  • Sample Size: 7 sera, each assayed 10 times, on 3 different assays, at 2 different sites. This implies 7 * 10 * 3 * 2 = 420 individual tests for the 7 sera. Additionally, HP, LP, NC had n=12 (per site), and Cal had n=36 (per site). Total of 492 determinations.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but likely laboratory-prepared samples / controls.
• Study 4 (Cross-Reactivity):
  • Sample Size: 53 samples (5 Lipemic, 5 Bilirubinemic, 10 RPR+, 8 RF+, 7 EBV+, 6 CMV+, 4 RMS+, 5 CRP+, 10 Elevated ESR, 16 dsDNA+).
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but these would be known positive samples for the interfering substances. Likely retrospective collection from various sources.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Study 1 (CDC Lyme Disease Panel): The ground truth is referred to as "Clinical Diagnosis." The information doesn't specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing these clinical diagnoses for the CDC panel. It is implied that the panel had a pre-established characterization based on clinical criteria and likely expert review.
• Study 2 (Clinical Lab Sera):
  • The ground truth for this study was established using Western Blot (Mardx Diagnostics Western Blot on both IgG and IgM) for any serum found positive or equivocal by ELISA.
  • The document does not specify the number of experts, if any, involved in interpreting these Western Blots or in establishing the initial clinical diagnoses for these 176 fresh sera. Western blot interpretation itself often relies on established guidelines, which may implicitly incorporate expert consensus.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus) for establishing the ground truth definitions in any of the studies.
• For Study 1, the "Clinical Diagnosis" assigned to the CDC panel samples serves as the ground truth.
• For Study 2, Western Blot results were used as a confirmatory "ground truth" for positive/equivocal ELISA samples. This is a technical adjudication rather than a human consensus adjudication on images.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed.
• This device is an ELISA lab test kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply here.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

• Yes, the performance presented for the Wampole Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA is a standalone performance of the test kit itself. It measures the direct output of the assay ("positive", "equivocal", "negative") based on antibody detection.
• The human role is in performing the lab procedure, reading the photometric results, and interpreting those results based on the kit's cut-offs, but the core "decision" of the assay (antibody presence) is algorithmic based on chemical reactions and optical density.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• Study 1 (CDC Panel): "Clinical Diagnosis" stratified by time after onset. This implicitly involves expert clinical judgment and the patient's presentation/history.
• Study 2 (Clinical Lab Sera): Western blot results (IgM and IgG) for samples that were positive or equivocal by ELISA. This is a higher-tier laboratory confirmatory test.
• It's important to note that the ELISA kit itself is for "qualitative presumptive detection" and "equivocal or positive results must be supplemented by testing with a standardized Western blot procedure," indicating the regulatory recognition of Western Blot as a more definitive confirmatory step in the diagnostic pathway.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The document does not provide information about a separate "training set" for the device. This is typical for traditional ELISA kits, which are based on biochemical principles and established reagent formulations rather than machine learning algorithms that require explicit training data. The development and optimization of the assay would have involved various internal sample testing, but this wouldn't be referred to as a "training set" in the context of AI.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• As there's no mention of a "training set" in the context of the device being an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not applicable. The development of the ELISA kit would have relied on known positive and negative controls, and extensive R&D, rather than a training set with established ground truth in the AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM ELISA kit is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for the qualitative presumptive detection of total (IgG/IgM) antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. This ELISA should only be used for patients with signs and patients with symptoms that are consistent with Lyme disease. Equivocal or positive results should be supplemented by testing with a standardized Western blot procedure. Positive supplemental results are supportive evidence of exposure to B. burgdorferi and can be used to support a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM ELISA test is an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay to detect IgGM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Purified Borrelia burgdorferi antigen is attached to a solid phase microtiter well. Diluted test sera is added to each well. If the antibodies are present that recognize the antigen, thev will bind to the antigen in the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound antibodv. An enzyme labeled anti-human IgG/IgM is added to each well. If antibody is present it will bind to the antibody attached to the antigen on the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound conjugate. A substrate solution is added to each well. If enzyme is present the substrate will undergo a color change. After an incubation period the reaction is stopped and the color intensity is measured photometrically, producing an indirect measurement of specific antibody in the patient specimen.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM ELISA Test Kit, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" with specific numerical thresholds for all performance metrics. However, we can infer the desired performance and report the observed results.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Test Set 1 (CDC Lyme Disease Serum Panel):
  • Sample Size: 47 sera (5 normals, 42 Lyme disease patients).
  • Data Provenance: Serum panel obtained from the CDC. The text mentions "masked, characterized serum panel." This is a retrospective collection. The country of origin is not explicitly stated but implied to be the US given the CDC involvement.
• Test Set 2 (Comparative Study with Predicate):
  • Sample Size: 176 fresh sera.
  • Data Provenance: "fresh sera from patients of various ages and genders that were submitted to a large clinical lab for B. burgdorferi antibody testing." This implies a prospective collection from a clinical lab, likely in the US.
• Test Set 3 (Precision Study):
  • Sample Size: 7 sera (tested 10 times each on 3 plates at 3 sites = 630 determinations) + 3 sera (tested 10 times each on 3 plates at 2 sites = 180 determinations) + 3 controls (HPC, LPC, NC, 15 determinations each) + 1 calibrator (CAL, 45 determinations). Total determinations mentioned as "810 determinations". The actual number of unique sera is 10.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical lab samples are implied for the sera, likely in the US.
• Test Set 4 (Cross-Reactivity Study):
  • Sample Size: 58 samples across various potentially cross-reactive conditions (e.g., 5 lipemic, 5 bilirubinemic, 10 RPR+ etc.).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but likely clinical samples. No country of origin mentioned.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

• Test Set 1 (CDC Panel): The ground truth is described as "Clinical Diagnosis" for the Lyme disease patients and "normals" for the controls. The document doesn't specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing these clinical diagnoses for the CDC panel.
• Test Set 2 (Comparative Study): The ground truth for positive/equivocal Wampole/Lyme Stat results was established by Western Blot testing (Mardx Diagnostics Western Blot on both IgG and IgM). This is a laboratory-based method, not a direct expert consensus on the diagnosis itself. The interpretation of the Western Blot, however, would typically be done by trained laboratory personnel.
• Test Set 3 & 4: Ground truth pertains to the known characteristics of the samples (e.g., known positive/negative for precision, known condition for cross-reactivity). No human experts were involved in establishing "ground truth" for the device's output to be compared against.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Test Set 1 (CDC Panel): Not explicitly stated. The "Clinical Diagnosis" is the reference, but how that diagnosis was made or adjudicated for the panel is not detailed.
• Test Set 2 (Comparative Study): For samples that were "positive or equivocal" by either the Wampole or Lyme Stat ELISA, Western Blot (WB) was used as the confirmatory test. This serves an adjudicative role by providing a higher-tier diagnostic confirmation. There is no mention of human expert adjudication beyond the Western Blot result itself.
• Test Set 3 & 4: Not applicable, as these studies are performance characterizations against known sample properties.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The studies presented focus on the standalone performance of the device or its comparison to another device and Western blot as a gold standard, not on how human readers' performance might improve with or without AI assistance. The device is a diagnostic assay, not an AI-powered image analysis tool.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was Done

Yes, the studies are primarily standalone performance evaluations of the ELISA test kit. The ELISA is a laboratory assay that produces a quantitative (optical density) result, which is then interpreted qualitatively (positive/negative/equivocal) based on predefined cut-offs. There is no "human-in-the-loop" interaction in the sense of an AI system providing assistance. The interpretation of the ELISA results for patient management would involve human clinicians, but the performance characteristics detailed here are for the assay itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Test Set 1 (CDC Panel): Clinical Diagnosis. This implies a physician's assessment based on symptoms, signs, and potentially other diagnostic tests.
• Test Set 2 (Comparative Study): Western Blot (laboratory-based confirmatory test). For comparison against the ELISA, the Western Blot was used as a more definitive ground truth for antibody presence.
• Test Set 3 (Precision Study): Internal controls or characterized sera with known expected values/positivity.
• Test Set 4 (Cross-Reactivity Study): Samples characterized by the presence of specific interfering substances or conditions (e.g., "Lipemic (+++)", "RPR +", etc.).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention or describe a "training set." This device is a traditional ELISA test kit, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a training phase. Its performance is based on the biochemical reaction and pre-defined cut-off values, not on a learned model.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device