Search Results

AUTION EYE AI-4510 Urine Particle Analysis System is a fully automated urine particle analyzer for in vitro diagnostic use. AUTION EYE AI-4510 is intended for the quantitative measurement of red blood cells (WBC) and squamous epithelial cells (SQEC), the semi-quantitative measurement of bacteria (BACT) and crystals (CRYS) and the qualitative measurement of white blood cell clumps (WBCC), non-squamous epithelial cells (NSE), hyaline casts (HYAL), non-hyaline casts (NHC), yeast (YST), mucus (MUCS) and sperm (SPRM) in urine samples.

A trained operator can set criteria for flagging speciment analyte image decisions should be reviewed and reclassified as necessary by a trained technologist.

The AUTION EYE AI-4510 analyzer can be used as a standalone unit or combined with an AUTION MAX AX-4060 urine chemistry analyzer.

The AI-4510 System (AUTION EYE AI-4510) is a fully automated urine particle analyzer for in vitro diagnostic use that uses flow cell digital imaging technology in a clinical laboratory setting. Based on images captured in the flow method, the instrument automatically classifies the images of various formed elements. The AI-4510 System can quantitatively measure RBC, WBC, and SQEC; semi-quantitatively measure BACT, and CRYS; and qualitatively measure WBCC, NSE, HYAL, NHC, YST, MUCS and SPRM in urine samples. In addition, the AI-4510 System allows trained operators to manually review and reclassify all the element images collected by the system.

This document describes the validation of the AUTION EYE AI-4510 Urine Particle Analysis System. The device is intended for the quantitative, semi-quantitative, and qualitative measurement of various elements in urine samples. The validation primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (iQ200 Urine Analyzer).

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a single table for all performance measures. Instead, it states that "all results meeting the predefined acceptance criteria" for precision studies, and that "Quantitative, Semiquantitative and Qualitative parameters met the acceptance criteria" for the method comparison study. The reported performance is presented in various tables throughout the "Summary of Performance Data" section (5.6).

Here's an aggregated table derived from the provided performance data:

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

• Precision Studies:
  • Repeatability Study: Clinical urine samples were used.
    • Quantitative elements: Not explicitly stated, but "clinical urine samples in the evaluation of repeatability for all twelve (12) elements from low to high concentrations."
    • Semi-quantitative and Qualitative elements: n=10 replicates per test level (e.g., Level 1, 2, 3 etc.).
  • Within-Laboratory Precision Study: ARKRAY control materials prepared using clinical samples.
  • Reproducibility Study: Commercially available control materials and ARKRAY control materials prepared using clinical samples were used.
• Linearity Testing: Not specified for sample size beyond "one instrument."
• Limit of Detection: Not specified for sample size.
• Carryover Testing: High-level and low-level samples, aliquoted into 5 tubes each, measured in sequences (e.g., H1 L1 H2 L2 H3 L3 H4 L4 H5 L5, repeated 5 times).
• Interference Testing: Not specified for sample size beyond the substances tested.
• Sample Stability: Positive and negative samples for all 12 elements.
• Method Comparison:
  • Population for Reference Range results: n=247
  • Quantitative Elements (RBC, WBC, SQEC): n=377 (RBC), n=845 (WBC), n=382 (SQEC) for comparison between AI-4510 (M) and iQ200 (M).
  • Semi-quantitative & Qualitative Elements: n=1474 (CRYS, BACT, WBCC, MUCS, SPRM), n=765 (NSE, NHC, HYAL, YST).
  • Data Provenance: Clinical samples. The method comparison study was conducted at "three (3) CLIA-Moderate complexity laboratories." The document states samples were "collected fresh within two (2) hours or refrigerated up to six (6) hours post collection," implying a prospective collection directly for these studies. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the submission is for FDA clearance in the US, and the company and testing sites (CLIA labs) suggest operations relevant to the US market.

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

The ground truth for the method comparison study (especially for semi-quantitative and qualitative elements) appears to be established by comparison to the predicate device iQ200 (Manual) and Manual Microscopy.

• For the method comparison, it refers to "CLIA-trained operators" performing testing and "A trained operator can set criteria for flagging speciment analyte image decisions should be reviewed and reclassified as necessary by a trained technologist." This indicates that trained technologists or CLIA-trained operators (which implies suitable qualifications for laboratory testing) established the "ground truth" or reference values, either by manual microscopy or using the predicate device's manual review function.
• The document does not specify the exact number of individual experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., specific years of experience, board certification as pathologists or medical technologists). It only refers to "CLIA-trained operators" and "trained technologists."

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• The document states: "All instrument analyte image decisions should be reviewed and reclassified as necessary by a trained technologist." This implies a form of human override or adjudication post-AI classification.
• For the "Method Comparison" tables (14, 15, 16), most comparisons are listed as "AI-4510 (Manual) vs. iQ200 (Manual)" or "AI-4510 (Manual) vs. Manual Microscopy." The "(M)" denotes "manually reviewed and reclassified results." This indicates that the results from both the investigational device and the predicate device/manual microscopy were subjected to manual review/adjudication by trained human operators to establish the final classification used for comparison.
• The specific method of adjudication (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 consensus) among multiple readers for establishing the ground truth is not specified. The comparison is against already "manual" classifications from the predicate or direct manual microscopy, suggesting that the human reading itself serves as the reference, likely by one or more trained technologists.

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 document describes performance characteristics of the device itself, often compared to a predicate device or manual microscopy.
• It does not describe an MRMC comparative effectiveness study where the performance of human readers with AI assistance is directly compared to human readers without AI assistance to quantify improvement or effect size. The AI-4510 System is an automated analyzer with a manual review component, not an AI assistance tool for human interpretation of images outside of the system.

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

• The document mentions "The software processes the recorded images, automatically identifying and classifying the formed elements based on the sorting algorithm." (Section 5.5)
• However, the indications for use explicitly state: "A trained operator can set criteria for flagging specimens. All instrument analyte image decisions should be reviewed and reclassified as necessary by a trained technologist."
• Furthermore, the "Method Comparison" tables are predominantly listed as "AI-4510 (Manual) vs. iQ200 (Manual)" or "AI-4510 (Manual) vs. Manual Microscopy," where "(M)" denotes "manually reviewed and reclassified results."
• This strongly suggests that the reported performance data for clinical claims (method comparison) represents the combined human-in-the-loop performance after technologist review and reclassification, particularly for the semi-quantitative and qualitative elements.
• While the device has an "automatic classification" function (also mentioned in section 5.4 under "Automatic Classification"), the reported clinical performance data does not appear to be purely standalone (algorithm-only) without human intervention.
• Table 11 (Interference Effect on Auto-classified Results) hints at some testing of the auto-classified performance in specific scenarios (interference), but the bulk of the clinical validation on the main intended use appears to involve human review.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth used for the method comparison study was established through:

• Comparison to the iQ200 System (Manual): This means the results obtained from the predicate device after its own manual review and reclassification process.
• Manual Microscopy: This is considered the traditional gold standard for urine particle analysis, established by trained technologists.

Therefore, the ground truth is a combination of expert consensus (implied via "trained technologist" review) and comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (also with human review), with manual microscopy serving as a reference.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document provided does not contain any information about the training set for the AI-4510 System's algorithm. This K submission focuses on device performance studies for validation and comparison to a predicate, not on the developmental aspects of the AI model.

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

As no information about the training set is provided, how its ground truth was established is also not available in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AUTION MAX AX-4060 Urinalysis System (AUTION MAX) is comprised of the AUTION MAX AX-4060 automated urine analyzer and AUTION Sticks 9EB multi-parameter test strips.

The AUTION MAX AX-4060 urine analyzer, when used with AUTION Sticks 9EB test strips is a fully automated urinalysis system intended for the in vitro qualitative or semi-quantitative measurement of the following analytes: glucose, protein, bilirubin, urobilinogen, pH, blood, ketones, nitrite, leukocytes, turbidity, and color. The test results of these parameters can be used in the evaluation of kidney, urinary, liver and other metabolic disorders. This system is intended to be used by trained operators in clinical laboratories.

AUTION Sticks 9EB test strips are test strips for the in vitro qualitative or semi-quantitative measurement of the following analytes: glucose, protein, bilirubin, urobilinogen, pH, blood, ketones, nitrite, and leukocytes with the AUTION MAX AX-4060 urine analyzer. The test results of these parameters can be used in the evaluation of kidney, urinary, liver and other metabolic disorders.

Special conditions for use statements: Prescription use only. AUTION Sticks 9EB test strips are not to be read visually.

The AUTION MAX AX-4060 Urinalysis System is a fully automated urine analyzer that provides a semi-quantitative or qualitative measurement for glucose, protein, bilirubin, urobilinogen, pH, blood, ketones, nitrites, leukocytes, specific gravity, turbidity, and color tone. The AUTION MAX AX-4060 Urinalysis System consists of AUTION MAX AX-4060 urine analyzer and AUTION Sticks 9EB test strips.

The AUTION Sticks 9EB test strips consist of a plastic strip containing 9 dry chemistry reagent pads impregnated with chemical substances for the determination of the above analytes in urine. These substances if present in urine leads to a chemical reaction that results in a color change, which is measured by the AUTION MAX AX-4060 urine analyzer based on spectrophotometry. In addition, three additional parameters, specific gravity, turbidity, and color tone are directly measured based on reflectance refractometry, transmitted and scattered light measurements.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

Device: AUTION MAX AX-4060 Urinalysis System
Predicate Device: AUTION MAX AX-4030 Fully Automated Urinalysis System

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as distinct numerical targets in the document. Instead, the study aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly understood as matching or performing comparably to the predicate device's established performance, particularly in terms of agreement percentage. The reported device performance is presented as the agreement between the proposed device (AUTION MAX AX-4060) and the predicate device (AUTION MAX AX-4030).

Key Performance Metric: Percentage of Exact Match and Percentage within +/- 1 Color Block Match compared to the predicate device.

(Note: The +/- 1 CB Match indicates results falling within one color block difference from the predicate, which is often considered acceptable for semi-quantitative tests.)

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

• Sample Size for Test Set (Method Comparison): A total of 1374 samples were used. This included:
  • 1333 natural patient samples
  • 41 spiked samples
• Data Provenance: The study was conducted at two (2) clinical laboratories. The document does not specify the country of origin, but given the FDA submission, it's likely conducted in or in accordance with standards for the U.S. and/or Japan (where the manufacturer is located). It is a prospective comparison study.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

This study does not involve human experts establishing a "ground truth" for each sample in the typical sense of diagnostic imaging or pathology. Instead, the "ground truth" for the method comparison study is the result obtained from the legally marketed predicate device (AUTION MAX AX-4030 Automated Urinalysis System). The study demonstrates the correlation and agreement of the new device's readings with the predicate device's readings. No information is provided about experts interpreting results aside from the automated systems.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Since the "ground truth" is established by the predicate device's results and the comparison is between two automated systems, there was no human adjudication process (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 consensus) described for the test set.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No. A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This study evaluates the performance of an automated urinalysis system against a predicate automated system, not the improvement of human readers with AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only without Human-in-the-Loop Performance)

Yes. The primary study detailed, especially the Method Comparison (Section 14), assesses the standalone performance of the AUTION MAX AX-4060 Urinalysis System. It compares the results generated by the new automated system directly against those generated by the predicate automated system, without human intervention in the result interpretation or decision-making process during the comparison phase. The device itself is an automated system intended to be used by trained operators in clinical laboratories, but the performance data presented is for the automated analyzer's output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the method comparison study was the results obtained from the legally marketed predicate device (AUTION MAX AX-4030 Automated Urinalysis System). For the initial precision study (Tables 3-5), the "Expected Result" for quality controls served as the reference.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (urinalysis system), not a typically "AI-driven" software device that undergoes explicit training. The device determines analytes based on chemical reactions and spectrophotometry (reflectance refractometry, transmitted and scattered light measurements). Therefore, there is no explicit "training set" in the context of machine learning algorithms usually discussed. The system is likely calibrated and validated during its development, but this is a different process than training an AI model.

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

As noted above, there is no explicit "training set" in the machine learning sense for this device. The chemical principles and measurement methods are well-established for urinalysis. Any calibration or internal development would have relied on known concentrations and reference methods for each analyte to ensure accurate colorimetric or other measurements. The basis of the technology relates to established chemical reactions on the test pads (e.g., Glucose oxidase reaction for glucose, Protein-error reaction for protein, etc.).

Ask a specific question about this device