(160 days)
Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System consists of Urine Analyzer and Urine Microalbumin Creatinine Strips. The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer is an automated, bench top instrument which is intended for prescription, in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for use only at Point-of-Care (POC) sites by professionals. The device is intended to be used together with the Urine Microalbumin Creatinine (UAC) Strips as a system for the semiquantitative detection of Microalbumin and Creatinine and determination of the albumin to creatinine ratio in urine. Test results may be used in screening urine specimens for microalbuminuria as an aid in the detection of patients at risk for developing kidney damage.
Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System consists of Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer and Urine Microalbumin Creatinine Strips. The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer (TC-201) is a portable easy to use instrument which reads Teco Diagnostics' Urine Microalbumin Creatinine (UAC) Strips for testing in the clinical laboratory. The analyzer can determine the intensity of different colors on the reagent strip test area. It does this by irradiating the test area with light and detecting the reflectance of different wavelengths using photodiode. Results are calculated by a reflection rate which is a percentage of the total reflectance of the testing wavelength and are printed automatically.
The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer reports semi-quantitative assays for microalbumin and creatinine. Reagent strip results are automatically displayed on the screen in one minute. A printed hardcopy can also be created either from the results screen or recalled from memory. The analyzer features a display, internal printer, a serial computer interface and an electrical outlet. Communication between the operator and the analyzer is made through the display using the user interface touch screen on the front surface of the instrument.
The Urine Microalbumin Creatinine (UAC) Strips are urine test strips of which microalbumin and creatinine reagent pad are affixed onto the firm plastic strips. The reagent pad areas are bibulous material saturated with chemically active substances, then dried and affixed to the plastic strip with double-sided adhesive. UAC strips provide tests for the semi-quantitative detection of Microalbumin (low concentration of Albumin) and Creatinine and determination of the Albumin to Creatinine ratio (A : C) in urine.
The document describes the Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System and its performance evaluation to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device.
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document provides the following comparison study results for the Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System against a predicate device:
| Metric | Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Albumin Result | Not explicitly stated | 84.9% (n = 518) Accuracy |
| Not explicitly stated | 97.9% (n=335) Sensitivity | |
| Not explicitly stated | 86.9% (n=183) Specificity | |
| Creatinine Result | Not explicitly stated | 83.4% (n = 518) Accuracy |
| Albumin to Creatinine Ratio | Not explicitly stated | 89.9% (n=518) Accuracy |
| Not explicitly stated | 92.5% (n=255) Sensitivity | |
| Not explicitly stated | 93.16% (n=263) Specificity |
Note: The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in numerical form. The conclusion states that "product specifications are met" and that the data "supports the substantial equivalence to the predicate device." Therefore, the reported performance metrics are implicitly presented as meeting the unstated acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Sample Size for Test Set: A total of 518 urine specimens were analyzed in the comparison study.
- Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It indicates the study was conducted at "three Point-of-Care sites," implying real-world clinical samples. While not explicitly stated as retrospective or prospective, the nature of a comparison study using collected specimens for analysis often points to a prospective collection for the study's purpose, though it cannot be definitively confirmed from the provided text.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications to establish the ground truth for the test set. The comparison study was conducted against a "predicate device" (Clinitek Status Plus Analyzer and Siemens Reagent Strips for Urinalysis), which would have its own established accuracy and is used as the reference standard in this context.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set. The comparison was primarily made against the results from the predicate device.
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
- MRMC Study: No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done.
- Effect Size of Human Readers with/without AI: Not applicable, as this device is an automated urinalysis system for chemical analysis, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation system that involves human readers improving with AI.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Yes, the analytical performance and comparison studies described appear to be evaluations of the "algorithm only" or the device's automated performance (Urine Analyzer and Urine Microalbumin Creatinine Strips as a system). The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer is an "automated, bench top instrument." The comparison study evaluates the system's performance in generating results compared to the predicate device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
The ground truth for the comparison study was established by the predicate device (Clinitek Status Plus Analyzer and Siemens Reagent Strips for Urinalysis). The study compares the results from the Uritek TC-201 system to those obtained from the predicate device on the same urine specimens.
8. The sample size for the training set
The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for a training set. The provided information pertains to verification, validation, and a comparison study for the device's analytical performance. As a medical device for chemical analysis, training sets in the typical machine learning sense might not be directly applicable in the same way as for AI/ML-based diagnostic algorithms. Device calibration and internal validation would involve specific samples, but these are not termed "training sets" in this context.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Since no specific "training set" is described for an AI/ML context, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable or provided. For the device itself, the "self-calibration with the white area located at the back of the test strip bed" is mentioned, which serves a calibration function.
§ 862.1225 Creatinine test system.
(a)
Identification. A creatinine test system is a device intended to measure creatinine levels in plasma and urine. Creatinine measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of renal diseases, in monitoring renal dialysis, and as a calculation basis for measuring other urine analytes.(b)
Classification. Class II.