Search Results

For the qualitative screening of human IgG antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) in human serum by indirect enzyme immunoassay as an aid in the diagnosis of certain autoimmune disorders. This test system screens for antibodies to Sm, Sm/RNP, SSA, SSB, Scl-70 and Jo-1 in one well. Positive samples should be evaluated further using tests designed for each ENA antibody. These reagents can be used either manually or in conjunction with the MAGO® or MAGO® PLUS Automated EIA Processors.

The Is-ENA-6 Screen Test Kit System is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of IgG to six extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), in human serum.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined "acceptance criteria" in terms of specific thresholds for sensitivity, specificity, or agreement that the device must meet to be considered acceptable. Instead, it presents the performance characteristics of the Is-ENA-6 Screen Test System and compares them to a "comparative method" (a predicate device). The implication is that performance comparable to or better than the predicate device, across multiple testing modalities (manual, MAGO, MAGO PLUS), constitutes acceptable performance.

However, based on the reported performance, we can infer what might be considered acceptable by showing strong correlation and similar diagnostic accuracy to the predicate device.

Inferred Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance Table:

Here's the breakdown of the study details:

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

• Sample Size:
  • 150 sera from normal blood donors
  • 88 sera from clinical patients
  • Total test samples = 238 (234 for manual/MAGO PLUS, 235 for MAGO after equivocal exclusions)
• Data Provenance: The document states "normal S. Florida blood donor population" for the normal samples and "sera obtained from patients with an autoimmune disease or with a known autoantibody reactivity" for the clinical samples. This implies the data is from the United States (Florida) and is retrospective, as the samples were "obtained" and then subsequently tested.

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

• The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the initial ground truth for the 88 clinical patient sera.
• For the discordant samples (10-11 samples depending on the test method), the "resolution" involved testing them in "6 specific commercially available ENA test kits for anti-SSA, -SSB, -Sm, -Sm/RNP, Scl-70 and Jo-1." This implies these specific ENA tests were used as the reference standard, not necessarily human expert consensus for the initial classification of all 238 samples.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• For the initial classification of the 238 samples, an explicit adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 expert consensus) is not described. The classification of "normal blood donors" and "clinical patients with an autoimmune disease or with a known autoantibody reactivity" likely relied on previous clinical records or diagnostic results.
• For the discordant samples between the Is-ENA-6 Screen Test Kit and the comparative method, the adjudication method involved testing them with "6 specific commercially available ENA test kits." The results from these specific tests were then used to "resolve" the discrepancy (e.g., "POS for anti-SSA"). This is a form of resolution by reference method.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study focuses on an in vitro diagnostic device (ELISA kit) performance compared to another similar kit, not on human reader performance with or without AI assistance.
  • Therefore, there is no effect size reported for human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance.

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

• Yes, this is a standalone performance study. The device itself (the Is-ENA-6 Screen Test System, operated manually or with automated processors MAGO/MAGO PLUS) is the "algorithm" here, and its performance is evaluated directly against a comparative method. There is no mention of a human-in-the-loop component for the interpretation of the Is-ENA-6 results as part of the study; the device generates a result (positive/negative/equivocal).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.):

• The ground truth for the 238 test samples primarily relies on pre-existing clinical classification (normal blood donor or patient with autoimmune disease/known autoantibody reactivity).
• For resolving discordant results between the test device and the comparative device, the ground truth was established by results from "6 specific commercially available ENA test kits" for individual ENA antibodies. This represents a reference standard based on other validated diagnostic tests.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. This document describes a validation study for an in vitro diagnostic kit, not an AI or machine learning algorithm that requires a separate training set. The "device" itself is a chemical assay kit.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. As this is not an ML algorithm, there is no training set in the context of machine learning. The "learning" of the device is inherent in its chemical design and manufacturing.

Ask a specific question about this device