Search Results

The ASCENSIA BREEZE Blood Glucose Meter is used with the ASCENSIA™ AUTODISC™ Blood Glucose Test Strips and ASCENSIA™ AUTODISCTM CONTROLS for the measurement of glucose in whole blood. The ASCENSIA BREEZE Blood Glucose Meter is an Over-the-Counter (OTC) device used by persons with diabetes and by healthcare professionals in home settings.

The ASCENSIA BREEZE Blood Glucose System is indicated for use with venous, and capillary whole blood samples drawn from the fingertip, palm, forearm, abdomen and thigh.

The frequent monitoring of blood glucose is an adjunct to the care of persons with diabetes.

The ASCENSIA™ BREEZE™ consists of an electrochemical method- based meter and dry reagent sensors (test strips) designed for testing glucose by persons with diabetes.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Ascensia BREEZE™ Blood Glucose Meter, extracted from the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state numerical "acceptance criteria" in a table format. Instead, it describes equivalence to a predicate device. The performance is assessed against the performance of the predicate device, ASCENSIA™ DEX® 2.

Note: The FDA's 510(k) clearance is based on a determination of "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than meeting pre-defined numerical performance targets in the same way a PMA (Premarket Approval) might require. The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly tied to demonstrating this substantial equivalence.

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

The document states an "evaluation of the ASCENSIA™ BREEZE™ Blood Glucose Meter was conducted at five clinical sites." However, it does not specify the sample size (number of participants or tests) used in this evaluation.

• Data Provenance: Clinical sites. The specific country of origin is not mentioned, but the submitter is Bayer Corporation, Elkhart, IN, USA, implying the study was likely conducted in the USA.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but clinical evaluations for device clearance are typically prospective in nature, collecting new data specifically for the study.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any adjudication method.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

This is not applicable to a blood glucose meter study. MRMC studies are typically for image interpretation tasks performed by multiple human readers (e.g., radiologists). This device is a direct measurement tool. The study did, however, evaluate the device "in the hands of diabetics," suggesting real-world user performance was considered.

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

Yes, the primary evaluation described is of the device itself (algorithm only, in the sense of the chemical and electronic measurement process) as performed by users. The "Assessment of Performance" section focuses on the meter's equivalence. While users operate the device, the performance being assessed is the meter's ability to accurately measure glucose, not human interpretation skills.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The document states that "Blood glucose results are reference to plasma glucose." This strongly implies that the ground truth was established by a laboratory reference method for plasma glucose.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information on a training set size. For a blood glucose meter, the "training" (calibration) is typically part of the device's design and manufacturing process, not a separate data-driven machine learning training set as might be seen for AI algorithms. The "linear response to glucose from 10-600 mg/dL" implies intrinsic calibration.

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

As no training set is explicitly discussed in the context of a machine learning-style model, this question is not directly applicable. However, the inherent calibration and accuracy of the device (its "training" in a broad sense) would be based on precise chemical standards and reference methods for glucose measurement, ensuring its linear response from 10-600 mg/dL, with plasma glucose as the reference.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bayer Diagnostics Clinitest® hCG Pregnancy Test is an in vitro qualitative test for the rapid detection of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) at a cut-off concentration of 25 mlU/ml in urine. This test kit is used to obtain a visual result and is intended for professional and laboratory use.

Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) test system for the use in early detection of pregnancy.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Bayer Diagnostics Clinitest® hCG Pregnancy Test, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion for this device appears to be its ability to accurately detect hCG at a specific concentration and differentiate between various hCG levels, particularly around the 25 mIU/mL cutoff.

Study Details

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set (Sensitivity Study):
  • Sample Size: 280 samples (20 samples per hCG concentration level across 7 levels x 2 product lots). Each sample was blind-labeled and tested.
  • Data Provenance: The samples were prepared in-house by spiking negative urine (from 4 donors) with hCG standard. This suggests laboratory-controlled, prospective data generation rather than retrospective patient data.
• Test Set (Accuracy Study):
  • Sample Size: 200 visual test results (68 samples at 0 mIU/mL, 66 at 25 mIU/mL, 66 at 100 mIU/mL).
  • Data Provenance: The samples were prepared by pooling four urine specimens and spiking them with hCG, then tested at two external sites. This is also laboratory-controlled, prospective data.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth (Test Set)

• Sensitivity Study: "Samples were randomly distributed among four visual readers for each product lot."
  • Number of Experts: 4
  • Qualifications: Not specified. It's likely they were trained laboratory personnel or similar, given the context of a professional-use device, but no specific professional titles (e.g., medical technologists, clinical laboratory scientists) or years of experience are listed.
• Accuracy Study: For the Clinitest® hCG results, it states "visual test results," implying human readers.
  • Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated how many individual readers performed the tests at the external sites, only that there were "two external sites."
  • Qualifications: Not specified.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Sensitivity Study: The text mentions "four visual readers for each product lot" and then reports aggregate "Number of Positives" and "Number of Negatives." It does not explicitly describe an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). It's possible that each reader's result contributed to the count, or a consensus was reached, but the specific process isn't detailed.
• Accuracy Study: The results are reported as "Clinitest® hCG Visual Results" and "100% agreement of sample results with the commercial hCG assay." No specific reader adjudication process is detailed beyond the visual reading at two external sites.

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

• No, this was not an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance. The device itself is a qualitative invitro diagnostic test for visual reading, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The "readers" mentioned are simply individuals interpreting the visual test results.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire performance section describes the algorithm's (the test's) ability to detect hCG in urine samples independent of a human interpretation for comparison or assistance. The "visual readers" are the mechanism by which the device (algorithm) provides a result, not an interface for an AI. The device is intended to provide a visual result, and its performance is the standalone performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Sensitivity Study: The ground truth was established by spiking negative urine with known concentrations of hCG standard. This is a highly controlled, synthetic ground truth. The hCG standard itself is calibrated against WHO 3rd International Reference Preparation (IRP).
• Accuracy Study: The ground truth for this study was established using a commercial hCG immunoassay (an immunoradiometric assay made by ADALTIS Italia). This is an external reference standard.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not describe a training set in the context of machine learning or AI. This is a traditional immunoassay device, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" for an AI model is not applicable here.

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

• As there is no mention of an AI algorithm or a training set, this question is not applicable to the provided information.

Ask a specific question about this device

For in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of the HER-2/neu protein in human serum or using the ADVIA Centaur System. HER-2/neu values obtained may be used in the follow-up and monitoring of patients with metastatic breast cancer whose initial serum HER-2/neu level is greater than 15 ng/mL. HER-2/neu values should be used in conjunction with information available from clinical and other diagnostic procedures in the management of breast cancer. The clinical utility of the measurement of HER-2/neu in serum as a prognostic indicator for early recurrence and in the management of patients on immunotherapy has not been fully established. This test should be used by or under the order of a physician. This assay is not intended for use on any other system.

The ADVIA Centaur HER-2/neu assay is a fully automated, two-site sandwich immunoassay using direct, chemiluminescent technology. The Lite Reagent is composed of the monoclonal mouse antibody, TA-1 labeled with acridinium ester. The Fluorescein Conjugate Reagent is composed of the monoclonal mouse antibody, NB-3, labeled with fluorescein. The two monoclonal antibodies are specific for unique epitopes on the extracellular domain of HER-2/neu. The Solid Phase is composed of purified monoclonal mouse capture antibody, which is covalently coupled to paramagnetic particles. The sample is incubated with Fluorescein Conjugate Reagent and Lite Reagent simultaneously for 5.5 minutes. After this incubation, the Solid Phase is added and the mixture is incubated for an additional 2.75 minutes. After this final incubation, the immuno-complex formed is washed. The measured chemiluminescence is directly proportional to the quantity of HER-2/neu antigen in the sample.

The provided text describes the ADVIA Centaur HER-2/neu Immunoassay and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Bayer Immuno-1 HER-2/neu kit. The primary study presented focuses on demonstrating this equivalence rather than establishing new acceptance criteria against a clinical ground truth.

Here's an analysis based on the provided information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document directly states that the "data demonstrate substantial equivalence." The acceptance criteria here are implicitly the thresholds for correlation and agreement that the FDA and the manufacturer consider sufficient to declare substantial equivalence to the predicate.

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

• Sample Size: 196 samples
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). However, the study involved comparing the new device's results to those of the predicate device on these 196 samples.

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

Not applicable. The study's purpose was to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not to establish a new ground truth based on expert consensus for the 196 samples. The "ground truth" in this context is the results obtained from the predicate device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The study involved a direct comparison between two assays: the new ADVIA Centaur HER-2/neu assay and the predicate Bayer Immuno-1 HER-2/neu assay. There was no expert adjudication process for discordant results as the goal was method comparison.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No. This was a direct comparison study between two in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays, not a study evaluating human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Yes. The study assessed the performance of the ADVIA Centaur HER-2/neu assay as a standalone device by comparing its results to those of another standalone IVD, the Bayer Immuno-1 HER-2/neu assay. Human interpretation of the raw chemiluminescence signal is not part of the device's functional mechanism; the device provides a quantitative result directly.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this study was the results obtained from the predicate device (Bayer Immuno-1 HER-2/neu assay). The study aimed to show that the new device produced comparable results to an already FDA-cleared device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is an immunoassay kit, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The development of such an assay involves reagent optimization and calibration, but not an "AI training set."

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of an immunoassay kit in the same way there would be for an AI algorithm. The development of the assay's reagents and calibration would be based on established biochemical and immunological principles, likely utilizing reference materials and internal validation processes.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Ascensia ""Glucofacts and the Ascensia WinGlucofacts Professional software are accessories to the AscensiaTM Blood Glucose monitoring systems. The Ascensia ""Glucofacts and the Ascensia """Glucofacts Professional software are Over-The Counter (OTC) devices used by persons with diabetes and by healthcare professionals for data transfer in the home and in healthcare facilities.

The Ascensia ""Glucofacts and the Ascensia ""Glucofacts Professional software consist of a CD, and a connecting cable. It is to be used with a compatible blood glucose meter and a Personal Computer (PC). The software provides data management of patient blood glucose results and uses standard statistical and graphical tools/techniques to facilitate the review of the data by individuals or health care professionals.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the Ascensia™ WinGlucofacts® and WinGlucofacts® Professional software. It details the device, its intended use, and states that performance studies were conducted. However, it does not provide detailed acceptance criteria or numerical performance data.

Based on the provided text, here is what can and cannot be extracted regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Summary: The document claims "satisfactory performance" and "equivalence" to a predicate device but does not specify the criteria or provide concrete performance data.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. The document only mentions "Internal and external Performance/Validation studies were conducted." It does not provide details on the source, nature (retrospective/prospective), or location (country) of the data used in these studies.

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)

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

Summary: This information is not mentioned in the provided text. The device is software for managing blood glucose results, which would typically involve comparing software outputs to known blood glucose values from meters or laboratory tests. The concept of "experts establishing ground truth" in the diagnostic imaging sense might not directly apply here, but rather a validation against instrument readings or laboratory standards. However, the document does not elaborate on the process or personnel involved in this validation.

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

• Adjudication Method: Not specified.

Summary: This information is not mentioned in the provided text.

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 Done: Not applicable/Not specified. This device is data management software for blood glucose results, which primarily facilitates review by individuals or healthcare professionals. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool in the sense of imaging analysis where human readers "improve" with AI assistance. The software provides data management and statistical/graphical tools, rather than directly interpreting data in a way that would lead to a comparative effectiveness study of human reader improvement with/without AI assistance.
• Effect Size: Not applicable.

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

• Standalone Study Done: Yes, implicitly. The "Performance Data" section states that "Internal and external Performance/Validation studies were conducted." While not explicitly called "standalone," the validation of software performance typically involves testing its functionality, accuracy of calculations, and data display capabilities independently of a human's ultimate interpretation beyond basic user interaction. The objective is to demonstrate that the software itself functions correctly and accurately processes the blood glucose data.

Summary: The document implies that the software's performance was validated without explicit human interpretative involvement beyond its intended use as a data management tool.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Not specified directly. For blood glucose data management software, the "ground truth" would generally be the actual blood glucose values as read by the compatible blood glucose meter or, in a more rigorous validation, potentially values confirmed by a laboratory reference method. The document refers to "capturing blood glucose meter results," implying the meter readings themselves (or a validated source of those readings) serve as the reference for the software's accuracy in data handling and display.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable/Not specified. This device is described as data management software that uses "standard statistical and graphical tools/techniques." It does not appear to be an AI/machine learning model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. Its functionality is based on established algorithms for data storage, calculation, and visualization, rather than learning from data.

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

• Ground Truth Establishment for Training Set: Not applicable. As noted above, a "training set" and associated ground truth establishment for such a set are not relevant for this type of software as described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Bayer ADVIA® IMS cPSA assay is an in vitro diagnostic device intended to quantitatively measure complexed prostate specific antigen (cPSA) in human serum. This assay is indicated for the measurement of serum complexed PSA as an aid in management (monitoring) of prostate cancer patients. Complexed PSA values obtained using the Bayer ADVIA IMS assay method must be interpreted in conjunction with all other available clinical and laboratory data before a medical decision is determined.

Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) is a secretory product of the epithelial cells of human prostatic tissue, whether normal, benign, or malignant. The tissue specificity of PSA makes it a sensitive and specific tumor marker as an aid in management (monitoring) prostate cancer patients and disease progression following surgery or other therapies. PSA in serum exists in several forms including free, uncomplexed PSA and PSA complexed to several protease inhibitors including a-2-macroglobulin, a-1antichymotrypsin (ACT), and a-1-antitrypsin. It should be noted that there are no existing commercial methods that can recognize PSA bound to α-2-macroglobulin. However, it has been demonstrated that the proportion of PSA complexed with ACT increases as a function of the total PSA concentration, and that the majority of immunoreactive PSA in cancer patients is in complex with ACT. The Bayer cPSA Assay uses a monoclonal antibody for capture which recognizes both free and complexed PSA, but which, when bound to free PSA, precludes the binding of other antibodies specific for the free form of PSA. The inclusion of a second, unlabelled monoclonal antibody which is specific for free PSA prevents the binding of free PSA in the cPSA assay and allows measurement of only PSA which is complexed with ACT. cPSA can be used as a single test alternative to free and total PSA in management of patients with CaP.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Bayer ADVIA® IMS cPSA assay, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device

The ASCENSIA™ DEX®2 Blood Glucose Meter is used with ASCENSIA™AUTODISC™ Blood Glucose Test Strips GLUCOMETER® DEX® Test Sensor and Controls for the measurement of glucose in whole blood. The ASCENSIA™ DEX®2 Diabetes Care System is an Over-The-Counter (OTC) device used by persons with diabetes and by healthcare professionals in home settings and in healthcare facilities. The frequent monitoring of blood glucose is an adjunct to the care of persons with diabetes.

The ASCENSIA™ DEX®2 Diabetes Care System consists of an electrochemical method-based meter and dry reagent sensor (test strips) designed for testing glucose by persons with diabetes or by healthcare professionals in the home or in healthcare facilities.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the ASCENSIA™ DEX® 2 Diabetes Care System, a blood glucose meter. It describes the device, its intended use, technological characteristics, and notes that performance data was collected. However, it does not provide specific acceptance criteria or detailed results of a study that proves the device meets those criteria, nor does it contain information about sample sizes for test or training sets, expert qualifications, or adjudication methods.

The document makes general statements about performance but lacks the quantitative data and study design details requested in the prompt.

Therefore, many sections of your request cannot be fulfilled based on the
provided text.

Here is what can be extracted and what cannot:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the document.
• Reported Device Performance:
  • "The studies demonstrated that users can obtain blood glucose results that are substantially equivalent to current methods for blood glucose."
  • "The System has a linear response to glucose from 10-600 mg/dL."
  • "The results of in-house and clinical evaluations of the ASCENSIA™ DEX® 2 Diabetes Care System demonstrate that the device is equivalent in performance to the predicate devices and suitable of its intended use."

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

• Sample Size: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: "in-house and in clinical settings" - no country of origin is mentioned. The description "An evaluation...was studied..." suggests prospective data collection.

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 specified. The text mentions studies "by healthcare professionals and by persons with diabetes," but does not detail the role of experts in establishing ground truth or their qualifications.

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

• Not specified.

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 blood glucose meter, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device that uses "human readers." No MRMC study is mentioned.

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

• The device itself is a standalone blood glucose meter. Its performance would be inherently "standalone" in the context of its direct measurement capabilities. The text states: "The ASCENSIA™ DEX® 2 Diabetes Care System consists of an electrochemical method-based meter and dry reagent sensor (test strips) designed for testing glucose..." The performance evaluation appears to be of the device's accuracy in measuring glucose values, which is its standalone function.

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

• The text states, "Blood glucose results are referenced to plasma glucose." This implies that a laboratory reference method for plasma glucose was used as the ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not specified. (The document doesn't explicitly refer to "training sets" as it's not a machine learning device in the modern sense, but rather a traditional medical device.)

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

• Not specified. (See point 8.)

Ask a specific question about this device

For in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative, serial determination of CA 125 in human serum and to aid in the management of patients with ovarian carcinoma using the ADVIA Centaur® System. The test is intended for use as an aid in monitoring patients previously treated for ovarian cancer. Serial testing for CA 125 in the serum of patients who are clinically free of disease should be used in conjunction with other clinical methods used for the early detection of cancer recurrence. The test is also intended for use as an aid in the management of ovarian cancer patients with metastatic disease by monitoring the progression or regression of disease in response to treatment. It is recommended that the Bayer ADVIA Centaur CA 125 II assay be used under the order of a physician trained and experienced in the management of gynecological cancers. This assay is not intended for screening or diagnosis of ovarian cancer or for use on any other system.

The ADVIA Centaur CA 125 II assay is a fully automated, single step sandwich immunoassay using direct, chemiluminescent technology. The Lite Reagent is composed of the monoclonal mouse antibody, OC125, specific for CA 125, labeled with acridinium ester and the monoclonal mouse antibody M11, specific for CA 125, labeled with fluorescein. The Solid Phase is composed of purified monoclonal mouse capture antibody, which is covalently coupled to paramagnetic particles. The sample is incubated with both Lite Reagent and Solid Phase simultaneously for 40 minutes. After incubation, the immuno-complex is washed. The measured chemiluminescence is directly proportional to the quantity of CA 15-3 antigen in the sample.

This document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the ADVIA Centaur CA 125 II assay, an in vitro diagnostic device used to quantitatively determine CA 125 levels in human serum to aid in the management and monitoring of ovarian carcinoma patients.

Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study results from the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state formal acceptance criteria in a table format with specific thresholds before presenting results. However, it implicitly uses substantial equivalence to a predicate device as the primary acceptance criterion. The key performance metric used to demonstrate this equivalence is correlation and regression analysis between the new device and the predicate device.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for the Test Set

The primary study for substantial equivalence to the predicate device involved:

• Sample Size: 227 samples
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study was likely conducted by the manufacturer, Bayer Corporation. It is a retrospective comparison based on existing samples.
• Another study for monitoring: 44 ovarian cancer patients (retrospective clinical study).

3. Number of Experts and their Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish a "ground truth" for the test set in the traditional sense of image analysis or diagnostic decision-making.

For the comparison study, the "ground truth" was essentially the results obtained from the predicate device (Bayer Immuno-1 CA 125 II assay). Therefore, no external experts were used to establish this specific ground truth.

For the retrospective clinical study on monitoring, the changes in clinical status were compared to the Centaur CA 125 II results. The clinical status would have been determined by physicians trained and experienced in the management of gynecological cancers, as indicated in the intended use statement. The exact number of these physicians or their specific qualifications for assessing clinical status in this study are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is mentioned or implied for either the primary equivalence study or the clinical monitoring study. The comparison was directly between the new device and the predicate device's measurements, and between the new device's measurements and observed clinical status.

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

No Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was mentioned. This type of study is more common for diagnostic imaging devices where human readers interpret results. The ADVIA Centaur CA 125 II assay is an automated immunoassay, and its performance is evaluated against chemical and clinical measures, not human reader interpretation.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire submission focuses on the performance of the ADVIA Centaur CA 125 II assay itself (the "algorithm only," in this context, refers to the automated immunoassay system) without human interpretation as part of its core function, other than a physician's decision-making based on the quantitative result.

The reported performance metrics (correlation coefficient, regression equation, sensitivity, and specificity) are all based on the device's direct output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the substantial equivalence study: The predicate device's results (Bayer Immuno-1 CA 125 II assay) served as the proxy "ground truth" for comparison. This is a common approach for in vitro diagnostics where a new test is compared to a previously cleared, established method.
• For the clinical monitoring study: The "ground truth" for evaluating sensitivity and specificity was changes in the clinical status of patients, which would be determined by physicians based on various clinical parameters and outcomes (e.g., disease progression, regression, recurrence). This can be classified as outcomes data or clinical assessment.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly state a separate "training set" size. Given the nature of a 510(k) submission for an immunoassay, the device itself (the assay and analyzer) would have been developed and optimized prior to these validation studies. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" as it applies to machine learning algorithms might not be directly transferrable or explicitly detailed in such a submission. The studies described are more akin to validation or test sets for the finished device.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

As no explicit "training set" is mentioned in the context of ground truth establishment, this information is not provided. The development and optimization of the assay would involve standard clinical chemistry and immunoassay development practices, where reference materials and known concentrations are used to calibrate and fine-tune the assay's performance characteristics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CLINITEK ATLAS PRO 12 Reagent Pak system is intended for use in at-risk patient groups to assist diagnosis in the following areas: kidney function, carbohydrate metabolism, urinary tract infections and liver function. The system also measures physical characteristics, including acid-base balance and urine concentration. Test results can be used along with other diagnostic information to rule out certain disease states. The CLINITEK ATLAS PRO Reagent Pak system is for professional use in centralized laboratory locations such as in hospitals and reference laboratories.

The CLINITEK ATLAS PRO 12 Reagent Pak is a roll of firm plastic to which are affixed 490 reagent strips. It is for use with the CLINITEK ATLAS® Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer. Each reagent strip contains 11 separate reagent areas to test for low level protein (15 mg/dL albumin), high level protein (>30 mg/dL protein), creatinine, occult blood, glucose, ketone (acetoacetic acid), leukocytes, nitrite, pH, bilirubin and urobilinogen. A protein-to-creatinine ratio is also determined. In addition, each strip contains a nonreactive 12th pad that is used for the determination of the specimen color.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the CLINITEK ATLAS PRO 12 Reagent Pak System. However, it does not include specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed results of a study designed to prove the device meets such criteria.

The document generally states: "The performance of the CLINITEK ATLAS PRO 12 Reagent Pak System was studied internally and in clinical settings. The studies demonstrated that typical users in centralized laboratories could obtain clinical test results that are comparable to commonly used laboratory tests." And, "Studies show that the product provides clinical results comparable to other test methods in current clinical practice."

Without specific acceptance criteria and an actual study report with raw data or summary statistics, it's impossible to completely fill out the requested table and answer many of the study-specific questions.

Here's an attempt to answer based only on the provided text, highlighting what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The provided text does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for the CLINITEK ATLAS PRO 12 Reagent Pak System. It only makes a general statement about performance being "comparable to commonly used laboratory tests." Therefore, the "Acceptance Criteria" column cannot be filled with specific numbers or thresholds. The "Reported Device Performance" is also broad.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: "studied internally and in clinical settings." This implies a mix, but specific countries or retrospective/prospective nature are not described.

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

• Not specified. The document refers to "commonly used laboratory tests" as the comparison, implying these tests served as a reference standard, but the process of establishing ground truth for individual samples using experts is not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not specified.

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. This device is an automated urine chemistry analyzer system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human reader improvement with AI assistance is not applicable.

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

• Yes, effectively. The "device" in this context (CLINITEK ATLAS PRO 12 Reagent Pak System used with the CLINITEK ATLAS® Automated Urine Chemistry Analyzer) operates as an automated system. The performance assessment describes its results as comparable to other laboratory methods. This fits the description of a "standalone" or "algorithm only" performance, as the system itself produces the results without direct human interpretive input being evaluated. The document states "typical users in centralized laboratories could obtain clinical test results," suggesting the system's output is directly used.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The ground truth was established by "commonly used laboratory tests" or "other test methods in current clinical practice." This implies comparison to existing, validated diagnostic methods. Specifics of these methods (e.g., gold standard chemical assays for creatinine, micro-albuminuria tests for low-level protein) are not detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable as this is not a machine learning/AI model described to be "trained." This is a diagnostic reagent system.

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

• Not applicable (see point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

For the quantitative determination of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in the following: human serum, as an aid in managing non-seminomatous testicular cancer when used in conjunction with physical examination, histology/pathology, and other clinical evaluation procedures, using the Bayer Diagnostics ACS:180 Automated Chemiluminescence System or the ADVIA Centaur System.

The Bayer Diagnostics ACS:180 & ADVIA Centaur AFP immunoassay is a two-site immunoassay using direct chemiluminometric technology, which uses constant amounts of two antibodies. The first antibody, in the Lite Reagent, is a purified polyclonal rabbit anti-AFP antibody labeled with acridinium ester. The second antibody, in the Solid Phase, is a monoclonal mouse anti-AFP antibody covalently coupled to paramagnetic particles. A direct relationship exists between the amount of AFP present in the patient sample and the amount of relative light units (RLU's) detected by the system.

The provided text describes the performance data for the ACS:180 & ADVIA Centaur AFP Immunoassay. Here's an analysis based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Measures AFP up to 1000 ng/mL.
• Minimum detectable concentration: 1.3 ng/mL.
  ACS:180:
• Measures AFP up to 1000 ng/mL.
• Minimum detectable concentration: 0.19 ng/mL. |
  | Accuracy | High correlation with predicate/alternate methods (e.g., r > 0.95). | ADVIA Centaur vs. ACS:180 (N=498):
• Equation: ADVIA Centaur AFP = 1.05 (ACS:180 AFP) - 0.3 ng/mL
• Correlation coefficient (r) = 0.99
  ACS:180 vs. Alternate Methods:
• Abbott IMX (N=504): ACS:180 = 0.94(Abbott IMX) + 4.6
• Kallestd AFP/Ob (N=1575): ACS:180 = 0.92(Kallestd AFP/Ob) + 6.2
• Abbott mEIA (N=183): ACS:180 = 0.97(Abbott mEIA) - 1.0
• Kallestd AFP/Ob (N=477): ACS:180 = 1.10(Kallestd AFP/Ob) + 1.0 |

Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document does not explicitly state specific numerical acceptance criteria for correlation coefficients or minimum detectable limits. Instead, it presents the performance data in comparison to a predicate device (ACS:180 for ADVIA Centaur) and other established methods. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the excellent correlation values (r=0.99 for ADVIA Centaur vs. ACS:180) which are typically considered a strong indicator of agreement in such assays.

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

• ADVIA Centaur Accuracy Test Set: 498 serum samples.
• ACS:180 Accuracy Test Set (vs. alternate methods):
  • vs. Abbott IMX: 504 samples
  • vs. Kallestd AFP/Ob (first test): 1575 samples
  • vs. Abbott mEIA: 183 samples
  • vs. Kallestd AFP/Ob (second test): 477 samples
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The document describes clinical performance data but does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The study compares the device's measurements to existing established methods (predicate device and alternate AFP methods), not to a ground truth established by human experts in the traditional sense of image or pathology review.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for these tests are the results from the established existing immunoassay methods. There is no mention of human adjudication as would be relevant for subjective assessments.

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

• No. This type of study is typically done for diagnostic imaging devices where human interpretation is a key component. The ACS:180 & ADVIA Centaur AFP Immunoassay is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay that provides quantitative results. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant for this device.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, standalone performance was assessed. The "Performance Data" section details the sensitivity (minimum detectable concentration) and accuracy (correlation with predicate and other immunoassay methods) of the devices themselves, without direct human intervention in the result generation. The device outputs a quantitative value for AFP concentration based on its internal processes.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" in this context is the results obtained from legally marketed and established predicate/alternate AFP immunoassay methods. The study aims to demonstrate that the new devices produce results that are highly correlated and comparable to these existing, accepted methods.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• This information is not provided in the document. Immunoassays typically involve calibration and validation rather than a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The document describes performance data, likely from validation studies, rather than development or training phases.

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

• Not applicable / Information not provided. As mentioned above, the concept of a "training set" and "ground truth" for it, as typically used in machine learning, does not align with the description of this immunoassay. The document focuses on demonstrating performance against established methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

This in vitro immunoassay is intended to quantitatively measure CEA in human serum using ADVIA IMS CEA Assay on a Bayer ADVIA® IMS™. Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) is a protein polysaccharide normally present at very low concentrations in the blood of healthy adults. Colorectal cancer and a variety of neonlantic and other disease processes cause significant elevation of CEA, thus issued as a tumor marker. CEA assay is designed to aid in the management and prognosis of cancer patients in whom changing concentrations of CEA are observed.

The Bayer ADVIA® IMS™ CEA assay is an in vitro diagnostic device intended to qualitatively measure carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in human serum. CEA test results are to be used as an aid in the management of cancer patients by monitoring CEA concentrations. CEA testing is not recommended as a screening procedure to detect cancer in the general population.

Not Found

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details based on the provided text, formatted to address your specific points:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the performance of the predicate device (Immuno 1) which the ADVIA IMS CEA Assay aims to be substantially equivalent to. The provided table directly compares the performance of the ADVIA IMS to the Immuno 1 for imprecision and minimum detectable concentration. For other metrics like correlation and interference, specific thresholds are not explicitly stated, but the reported values demonstrate acceptable performance relative to the predicate device and expected analytical specifications for such assays, leading to the conclusion of substantial equivalence.

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size: 89 serum specimens were used for the correlation study.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The document indicates "human serum" samples were used.

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

   • This is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for quantitative measurement of a biomarker. The "ground truth" for such assays is established through comparison to a well-characterized reference method or predicate device. Human experts are generally not involved in establishing the ground truth for an IVD's quantitative measurements in the same way they would be for image interpretation.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable. As this is a quantitative measurement compared to a predicate device, adjudication by multiple human readers is not relevant.

4. 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 an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for image interpretation or similar applications where MRMC studies are typically conducted.

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

   • Yes, the performance data presented (imprecision, correlation, interference, analytical range, minimum detectable concentration) represent the standalone performance of the ADVIA IMS CEA Assay device itself. It's a fully automated analytical system once the sample is loaded.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Predicate Device Comparison: The primary "ground truth" or reference for establishing the performance of the ADVIA IMS CEA Assay was the Immuno 1 CEA Assay. The study demonstrates correlation and comparative performance against this legally marketed predicate device.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not specified. For an in vitro diagnostic assay, there isn't typically a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Assay development involves optimizing reagents, protocols, and instrument parameters, but not usually in a data-driven training paradigm like AI. The reported data pertains to the validation of the final developed assay.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable, as there isn't a "training set" in the context of an IVD assay's analytical performance validation. The performance characteristics are inherent to the assay's chemical and instrumental design.

Ask a specific question about this device