Search Results

The assay is intended for use in detecting antibodies to SSB (La) antigen in a single human serum sample. The results of the assay are to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of autoimmune disorders.

The Is-anti-SSB Test Kit System is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection and semi-quantitation of IgG to SSB (La) antigen in human serum.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Diamedix Is-anti-SSB Test System, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document directly states the reported performance but does not explicitly define numerical acceptance criteria that were set before the study. The implied criteria are derived from typical expectations for diagnostic assays and the results themselves.

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size:
     • Comparison Testing: 165 sera (100 normal blood donors + 65 autoimmune patients).
     • Precision Testing: 6 different sera, kit Calibrator, and controls.
     • Cross-reactivity: 24 sera.
     • Expected Values: 100 normal donor sera + 65 clinically characterized sera (total 165 sera).
     • Correlation (Manual vs. MAGO): 165 samples.
   • Data Provenance:
     • Normal Donor Sera: Collected in South Florida (USA).
     • Autoimmune Patients Sera: "Clinically characterized sera" - no specific geographic origin or retrospective/prospective nature is stated for these.
     • The study is likely retrospective as samples are "clinically characterized" and already available for testing against two methods.

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

   • The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications.
   • It mentions "clinically characterized sera" for autoimmune patients, implying medical professionals or a diagnostic process established their status, but details are not provided.
   • For normal blood donors, the "normal" status serves as a baseline ground truth.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document mentions: "Upon retest by a referee method, one of the sera was positive, the other was negative" for two discrepant samples in the comparison testing. This indicates a form of adjudication by a referee method for discordant results, but the specific process (e.g., number of referees, consensus rules) is not detailed.
   • For the initial ground truth of "clinically characterized sera," the adjudication method is not described.

4. 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. This is a diagnostic device (ELISA kit) for detecting antibodies, not an AI-powered system designed to assist human readers (like radiologists interpreting images). Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not applicable and was not performed. The "MAGO" system mentioned is likely an automated instrument for running the ELISA, not an AI interpretation tool.

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

   • Yes, in essence. The "device" itself (the Is-anti-SSB Test System) operates as a standalone diagnostic tool. Its performance (sensitivity, specificity) is measured by how accurately it detects antibodies in patient samples, independent of human interpretation of the result beyond reading the final photometric value. The MAGO system further automates this, effectively representing a "standalone" automated assay.

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

   • Clinical Characterization: For the 65 autoimmune patients, the ground truth was established by their "clinically characterized" status, implying a diagnosis based on clinical symptoms, other diagnostic tests, and potentially expert medical opinion.
   • Normal Status: For the 100 normal blood donors, the ground truth was their status as "normal."
   • Referee Method: For discrepant results, a "referee method" was used as the ground truth.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This document describes performance validation studies, not the development or training of an algorithm (like an AI model). Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The ELISA kit itself is a biochemical assay.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable as there is no training set for an algorithm. The "training" of the assay kit would pertain to its biochemical formulation and optimization during its development, not a data-driven training process in the AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device