Search Results

HiChem BUN/Urea Reagent (product no. 70006) is for the quantitative determination of urea nitrogen in serum. plasma and urine. Plasma urea levels are affected by a wide variety of factors including diet, increased protein catabolism and mild dehydration as well as many renal diseases. The major value of plasma urea measurement is in distinguishing between renal and non-renal related causes.

The HiChem BUN/Urea Reagent determines urea nitrogen through enzymatic hydrolysis by urease. The rate of this reaction, and the quantity of urea nitrogen in the specimen is monitored through the measurement of the resulting ammonia which oxidizes NADH to NAD in the presence of ox-keto-glutarate and glutamate dehydrogenase. The reagent is supplied as two liquid-stable reagent components which are intended to be combined, either before or during use, in the approximate ratio of 1 part BUN/Urea Enzyme Reagent and 5 parts BUN/Urea Buffer. The BUN/Urea Enzyme Reagent can also be used as a start reagent and combined with the reagent buffer after sample addition.

This document describes the performance of the HiChem BUN/Urea Reagent and compares it to existing reagents, rather than an AI-powered device. Therefore, many of the requested elements for an AI device study (e.g., sample size for AI test set, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and reported performance based on the provided text for the HiChem BUN/Urea Reagent.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" with numerical thresholds for all evaluated aspects. Instead, it presents performance metrics and makes claims about substantial equivalence to predicate devices, linearity, and stability. I will infer acceptance criteria where possible from the claims made (e.g., linearity to at least 150 mgN/dL, shifts less than specified values for stability). For comparative studies, the acceptance is implied if the regression statistics (r², Sy.x) demonstrate strong agreement with the predicate device.

Manual Procedure:

Automated Hitachi 704 Procedure:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Test Set Sample Sizes:

  • Precision (Manual):
    • Low, Mid, High serum controls: n = 30 for each
    • Low, High urine pools: n = 30 for each
  • Method Comparison (Manual):
    • Serum and plasma specimens vs. Sigma: n = 80
    • Urine specimens vs. BMD: n = 39 (diluted with normal saline)
  • Interfering Substances: "Spiked and unspiked serum pools" (number not specified)
  • Precision (Automated Hitachi 704):
    • Low, Mid, High serum controls: n = 60 for each
    • Low, High urine pools: n = 60 for each
  • Method Comparison (Automated Hitachi 704):
    • Mixed serum and plasma specimens vs. BMD: n = 190 (diluted with normal saline)
    • Urine comparison: (assumed to be part of or similar to the 190 specimens, not explicitly stated as a separate count)
  • Calibration Stability: Serum controls spanning 8 to 132 mgNdL (number not specified, but tested over time)

• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the samples or whether the study was retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of a 510(k) submission for a diagnostic reagent in the USA, it is likely that the studies were conducted in the USA using samples that would be representative of a general patient population. The studies appear to be prospective experimental evaluations of the reagent's performance.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not Applicable. This is a chemical reagent study, not an imaging or diagnostic AI study requiring expert adjudication of ground truth in the traditional sense. The "ground truth" for method comparisons is established by the results obtained from the predicate/comparable reagents (Sigma BUN (Rate) Reagent and BMD BUN Reagent), which are themselves established and validated clinical chemistry methods. For linearity and precision studies, the "ground truth" is based on known concentrations of standards and controls.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not Applicable. As mentioned above, this is not an AI diagnostic study involving human interpretation that would require an adjudication method.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a performance study for a chemical reagent, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device that would involve human readers.

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

• Yes, this is essentially a standalone performance study. The HiChem BUN/Urea Reagent, both manually and on the Hitachi 704, operates as a standalone chemical test. Its performance is evaluated independently and then compared to predicate devices. There is no "human-in-the-loop" component in the direct measurement process of the reagent itself, beyond standard laboratory procedures for sample handling and instrument operation.

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

• The "ground truth" for this study is multifactorial:
  • Known concentrations: For linearity and precision studies, commercially available control sera and urine pools, as well as linearity standards, are used, which have established, known concentrations of urea nitrogen.
  • Reference Method/Predicate Device Results: For method comparison studies, the results from the predicate devices (Sigma BUN (Rate) Reagent and BMD BUN Reagent) are used as the reference "truth" against which the HiChem reagent's performance is compared. These are established and accepted clinical chemistry methods.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This is a chemical reagent, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set for a chemical reagent, this question is irrelevant.

Ask a specific question about this device