Search Results

For in vitro diagnostic use with the IMMULITE® 2000 Analyzer - for the quantitative measurement of allergen-specific IgE in human serum, as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergic disorders. The test results are to be used in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests.

IMMULITE® 2000 3gAllergy™ Specific IgE is a solid-phase, two-step, chemiluminescent immunoassay that exploits liquid phase kinetics in a bead format. It represents a significant advance over conventional methods relying on allergens attached to a solid-phase support, such as a paper disk. The allergens are covalently bound to a soluble polymer/co-polymer matrix, which in turn is labeled with a ligand. The use of an amino acid co-polymer amplifies the amount of allergen that the matrix can support. Incubation Cycles: 2 × 30 minutes.

The provided document describes the Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. IMMULITE® 2000 3gAllergy™ Specific IgE Assay, which is an in vitro diagnostic device for the quantitative measurement of allergen-specific IgE in human serum, as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergic disorders. The document focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of nine additional specific allergens for use with this existing assay.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria values for each performance characteristic (e.g., "Total CV must be < 10%"). Instead, it presents the results of the studies and concludes that the analytical performance is "acceptable" and the assay "compares well with clinical documentation." However, we can infer some criteria based on industry standards for similar assays and the presented data.

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

• Precision and Linearity: The document does not explicitly state the total number of individual patient samples used for precision and linearity.
  • Precision: For each allergen, "three positive samples and one negative sample" were tested. Positives 1-3 were assayed in two aliquots, two runs/day over 20 days. Positive 4 was assayed in two aliquots, two runs/day over 10 days.
  • Linearity: For each allergen, "two samples were diluted in 2-fold serial dilutions to 5 levels." N refers to the number of data points for regression, which ranges from 8 to 12.
• Specificity (Inhibition): A "single serum sample or pool of sera" was used for competitive inhibition. A "negative sample" was used for background. For cross-reactivity, "one positive sample with three unrelated allergen extracts" was used.
• Clinical Performance:
  • Test Set Size: 828 total samples (228 clinically positive, 600 clinically normal/negative).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin. The study appears to be retrospective, as results were compared to "accompanying clinical information" and "clinical documentation of presence or absence of signs, symptoms and other diagnostic evidence of allergen sensitivity," implying existing patient data.

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 or qualifications of experts who established the "clinical data" or "clinical documentation" used as ground truth for the clinical performance study. It refers generally to "clinical findings and other laboratory tests" and "signs, symptoms and other diagnostic evidence of allergen sensitivity."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing the clinical ground truth. It simply refers to "clinical data" and "clinical documentation."

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

This is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an imaging device or AI-powered diagnostic that involves human readers interpreting results in a "multi-reader multi-case" scenario. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with/without AI assistance is not applicable and was not performed.

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

This is a standalone diagnostic assay (IMMULITE® 2000 3gAllergy™ Specific IgE Assay) which provides quantitative measurements of IgE. Its performance is presented as the "algorithm only" or "device-only" performance, as it reports a numerical result. The assay is intended to be used "in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests," indicating that a human (clinician) interprets the result within the broader clinical context, but the assay itself is not a human-in-the-loop system in the sense of AI-assisted image interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Studies (Precision, Linearity, Specificity): The ground truth for these studies is based on established analytical methods and reference materials (e.g., known concentrations for linearity, relevant inhibitor extracts for specificity).
• Clinical Performance Study: The ground truth used was clinical documentation and findings, including "case histories of suspected clinical reactions to the specific allergen or allergy" for allergic patients, and classification as "non-atopic individuals" for controls. This falls under outcomes data or expert clinical consensus based on patient history, symptoms, and other diagnostic evidence, rather than a single definitive pathology report for each case.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI development. This is a traditional immunoassay, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a separate training set. The data presented demonstrates the analytical and clinical performance of the manufactured assay.

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

As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no "training set" in that sense, and therefore no ground truth was established for a training set. The assay's design and parameters would have been developed through R&D processes, likely involving internal validation with characterized samples.

Ask a specific question about this device