Search Results

Lacrytest is a rapid immunoassay for the detection of total IgE in tears, Semi-quantitative detection of total IgE In tears (< 2.5 KIU/liter, 2.5 - 10 kIU/liter, 10 - 40 klU/liter, and > 40 klU/liter) indicates local IgE production associated with allergic conjunctivitis. This test is used in the physician office and professional clinical laboratories.

Lacrytest (marked CE) allows the rapid and specific determination of total IgE in tears (in vivo/in vitro). This test is a simple and rapid immuno-chromatographic test, which enables the identification of allergic conjunctivitis in one single step. Its main advantage is that it can be done in vivo without being invasive. The speed and simplicity of this unique test enables a better and faster treatment of the patient. Lacrytest is a ready-to-use strip, with all the necessary reagents already incorporated into it. No instrumentation or prior provision of tear samples is required: Lacrytest uses monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies to detect total IgE in tears. Lacrytest gives results from just one teardrop, and is placed in contact with the patient's eye for less than three minutes, causing minimum discomfort when compared to the Schirmer assay. Doctors do not have to take tear sample, and an indicator appears on the strip when enough tear fluid has been absorbed. The test strip is then soaked with sterile water and the evaluation of amount of total IgE detected. The results appear in the form of easily visible red-violet lines in the presence of total IgE levels greater than 2,5 KUI/L (the detection limit). These results are stable and can be archived. The test can be used in the laboratory, in the doctor's surgery or on a home visit.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the requested information about the Lacrytest device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the Lacrytest device are implicitly established by comparison to the predicate device, UniCAP total IgE FEIA Assay. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating comparable sensitivity and specificity.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document describes the Lacrytest as having "slightly lower sensitivity than UniCAP and an equal specificity." This implies that the acceptance criteria for sensitivity were flexible enough to accommodate a minor difference. The precision data comparison also highlights areas where Lacrytest's performance differs (e.g., higher CV at low levels).

Study Details

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size: 165 human serum samples were used for comparative studies against UniCAP.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for these 165 human serum samples, nor does it specify if the data was retrospective or prospective. It only mentions "human serums."

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

• The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for the test set in the context of the comparative study. The ground truth appears to be based on the results obtained from the predicate device, UniCAP.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• No adjudication method is described for the test set. The comparison is directly made against the UniCAP results. The "human reading of the device" is cited as a factor for some agreement differences, but no specific adjudication process for discrepancies is detailed.

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

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is a rapid immunoassay test, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

• The Lacrytest is a standalone immuno-chromatographic test. Its performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, precision) are measured for the device itself.
• However, the interpretation of the results involves "human reading," as noted for the agreement of results ("mainly explained by the human reading of the device"). This suggests that while the test is standalone, its ultimate performance in practice can be influenced by human interpretation of the visual lines.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The primary ground truth for the performance study (sensitivity and specificity) was established by comparison to the UniCAP total IgE FEIA Assay, which served as the reference method. This is a form of reference standard comparison.
• For the "normal healthy subjects" section, the ground truth was presumably based on clinical diagnosis or established healthy status.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The document does not mention a "training set" as would be relevant for machine learning algorithms. The performance data provided is for the device as evaluated, implying a validation or verification set against a reference. This is a traditional immunoassay, not an AI-based system that undergoes a separate training phase.

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

• As there is no mention of a training set, the establishment of ground truth for such a set is not applicable to the information provided.

Ask a specific question about this device