Search Results

The AnemiaPro™ Self-Screener is intended for over-the-counter distribution, for the determination of hemoglobin concentration in a self-collected capillary whole blood sample. The device is not intended for use in neonates.

The device is a kit containing the materials necessary to self-collect and test a capillary blood sample using a single-use, disposable unit. The test unit is a self-contained plastic housing for a nitrocellulose-based test strip, which employs the principals of blood cell separation. The plasma that is obtained during blood separation migrates through the test strip, and the migration front is made visible by staining with an impregnated dye. The plasma migration distance is linearly and inversely proportional to hemoglobin concentration. The kit is comprised of a blood testing unit packaged in a foil pouch, alcohol prep pad, disposable lancets, gauze pad, bandage strip, and collection instructions containing information about anemia.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the AnemiaPro™ Self-Screener, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a table format. However, it does describe the performance studies conducted and what they aimed to evaluate. The results indicate that the device met the implicit criteria for substantial equivalence to the predicate devices.

Study Information

The document provides a summary of the performance studies.

1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

   • Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a single number. The studies were conducted on "self-collected capillary blood samples from volunteer study subjects." The phrase "three different geographical trial sites" suggests a decent number of participants, but the exact number isn't provided in this summary.
   • Data Provenance: Prospective. The studies involved "volunteer study subjects" from whom samples were "collected." Samples were collected from "three different geographical trial sites."

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

   • "A corresponding venous blood sample and a professionally collected capillary blood sample were collected by the health care professional in order to compare venous hemoglobin results to those obtained from both capillary blood samples tested on the Anemia Test Devices."
   • The "health care professional" served as the primary expert for professional capillary blood sample collection.
   • "Venous samples were express shipped to BIOSAFE Laboratories for hemoglobin analysis using the predicate methods." This implies that the predicate devices' results, performed by qualified laboratory personnel at BIOSAFE Laboratories, served as the ground truth. The specific number and qualifications of these laboratory personnel are not provided.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method for conflicting results. The comparison was made between the AnemiaPro™ device, professionally collected capillary samples, and venous blood samples tested on predicate devices. It seems the predicate device results served as the reference standard.

4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers assisting with the device's output and measuring their improvement was not conducted or described. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) for determining hemoglobin concentration, not an imaging or diagnostic aid for human interpretation.

5. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

   • Yes, the performance study effectively evaluates the standalone performance of the AnemiaPro™ Self-Screener. The device provides "determination of hemoglobin concentration," which is a direct output. Its performance was compared against predicate devices, indicating its standalone accuracy.

6. Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • The primary ground truth appears to be comparison with predicate devices (Cell Dyn 3700 Analyzer and HemoCue B-Hemoglobin Instrument) using venous blood samples, which are generally considered a gold standard for hemoglobin measurement in a clinical setting. Professionally collected capillary blood samples also served as a comparative reference.

7. Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • The document does not mention a separate training set or its sample size. The description focuses on "performance studies" and "clinical trials" which are typically used for validation. For a device like this, the 'training' often refers to assay development and optimization, rather than a machine learning training set as in AI.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

   • Since a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning or complex algorithms is not described, the method for establishing ground truth for such a set is not applicable or provided in this summary. The fundamental accuracy and comparison were based on the predicate devices during the performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SAFE AT HOME CHOLESTEROL PROFILE Blood Collection and Transport System is intended for over-the-counter distribution, for the self-collection and transportation of dried capillary blood for in vitro diagnostic quantitative determination of Total Cholesterol, HDL-Cholesterol, Triglycerides and Calculated LDL-Cholesterol in dried blood spots. This kit is not intended for use on neonates. LDL cannot be determined where the triglyceride value is greater than 400 mg/dL.

The device is a kit containing the materials necessary to self-collect a capillary blood sample onto a filter paper card for transport to a certified clinical laboratory for lipid profile testing. The kit is comprised of a blood collection card packaged in a foil pouch, alcohol prep pad, disposable lancets, gauze pad, bandage strip, collection instructions, return prepaid envelope, and a patient test authorization form.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "SAFE AT HOME CHOLESTEROL PROFILE Blood Collection and Transport System." While it mentions performance studies and substantial equivalence, it does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria or provide a detailed table comparing acceptance criteria with reported device performance.

However, I can infer some general performance aspects and describe the associated study based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As specific numerical acceptance criteria are not provided, this table will reflect the general performance claims and the comparison method.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "clinical trials" and "volunteer study subjects," but does not provide the number of subjects or samples.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but likely the United States given the FDA submission and the company's address.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: The study involved "volunteer study subjects" and the collection of "corresponding venous blood sample and a professionally collected capillary blood sample" alongside the self-collected samples, indicating a prospective study design.

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

This device is for in vitro diagnostic determination of lipid profiles, not interpretation by human experts. The ground truth would be established by laboratory analysis using predicate devices and validated methods, not expert consensus. Therefore, this section is not applicable in the traditional sense of human expert review.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The "ground truth" for lipid levels is determined by established laboratory analytical methods, not by adjudication among human readers.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for imaging or diagnostic devices where human interpretation plays a significant role. For this in vitro diagnostic device, the comparison is between blood collection methods (self-collected capillary vs. venous/professionally collected capillary) and their analytical results.

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

This question is not directly applicable in the context of this device. The "device" is a blood collection and transport system. The analysis of the blood samples is performed by standard laboratory instruments and reagents (Synermed Cholesterol Reagent Kit, Sigma Diagnostics Infinity Triglyceride Reagents, Sigma Diagnostics EZ-HDL Cholesterol Reagents), which can be considered "standalone" in their analytical capacity once the sample is prepared. The study evaluates the sample quality and the method modifications used by BIOSAFE Laboratories to analyze these specific dried capillary blood spots.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was comparative laboratory results from venous (serum) blood samples and professionally collected capillary blood samples, analyzed using predicate or established laboratory methods. This acts as the "gold standard" against which the self-collected capillary samples were compared.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a separate "training set" for the device itself. The primary study described is a performance study comparing different sample types. If there was an internal development or optimization phase for their "modified analytical methods," the sample size used for that is not specified.

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

As no explicit training set for the device is mentioned, this is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the overall validation was established by standard laboratory analysis of venous and professionally collected capillary blood, as described in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BIOSAFE CHOLESTEROL PROFILE Blood Collection and Transport System is intended for prescription distribution, and is a clinic-use device for collection and transportation of dried capillary blood for in vitro diagnostic quantitative determination of Total Cholesterol, HDL-Cholesterol, Triglycerides and Calculated LDL-Cholesterol in dried blood spots. This kit is not intended for use on neonates. LDL cannot be determined where the triglyceride value is greater than 400 mg/dL.

The device is a kit containing the materials necessary to collect a capillary blood sample onto a filter paper card for transport to a certified clinical laboratory for lipid profile testing. The kit is comprised of a blood collection card packaged in a foil pouch, alcohol prep pad, disposable lancets, gauze pad, bandage strip, collection instructions, return prepaid envelope, and a patient test authorization form.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the acceptance criteria and details about the study proving device performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document (K011970) is a 510(k) summary for a blood collection and transport system, primarily focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than establishing specific performance acceptance criteria with numerical targets.

The document states: "Results of clinical trials show that professionally collected capillary samples onto the BIOSAFE Blood Collection Card provide results that are substantially equivalent to venous (serum) results for Total Cholesterol, HDL Cholesterol and Triglycerides when analyzed using BIOSAFE Laboratories modified analytical methods."

It further states: "Determination of professionally collected capillary blood Total 7) Performance Studies Cholesterol, HDL Cholesterol and Triglycerides using the BIOSAFE CHOLESTEROL PROFILE Blood Collection and Transport System is substantially equivalent to venous (serum) samples for lipid profile BIOSAFE Laboratories modified analytical methods testing."

Given this, the acceptance criteria are qualitative, centered around robust statistical equivalence to established venous blood testing methods, rather than specific numerical thresholds for accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity. The device performance is reported as meeting this "substantial equivalence."

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state a specific number for the sample size. It mentions "volunteer study subjects" and "professionally collected blood samples from volunteer study subjects at three different geographical sites."
• Data Provenance: The study was conducted using prospective data collection. The subjects were volunteers, and samples were collected specifically for this study. The data was collected from "three different geographical sites." The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but given the FDA 510(k) submission, it's highly likely to be the United States.

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

The document does not describe the use of "experts" to establish ground truth in the traditional sense of image or clinical interpretation.

• The ground truth for the study was established by laboratory analysis of venous blood samples using FDA-Cleared laboratory reagent and analysis systems. The "experts" in this context would be the certified clinical laboratory professionals performing the analyses and the established analytical methods themselves. The document states: "A corresponding venous blood sample was collected by the health care professional in order to compare serum lipid results to those obtained from capillary blood samples collected onto the BIOSAFE Blood Collection Card."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This is not a study involving human readers or interpretation where an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 would be relevant. The ground truth was based on laboratory analysis, which inherently includes internal quality controls and standardized procedures.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study is focused on the analytical performance of the collection and transport system against standard laboratory methods, not on human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, in a way. The "device" in question is a blood collection and transport system. The performance study evaluates the standalone analytical performance of the collected capillary blood samples (after transport and preparation) when run on standard laboratory analytical systems (Synermed Cholesterol Reagent Kit, Sigma Diagnostics Infinity Triglyceride Reagents, Sigma Diagnostics EZ-HDL Cholesterol Reagents). The "algorithm" here is the combined process of collection, transport, and subsequent laboratory analysis, without direct human intervention in the final analytical measurement itself. The comparison is between the results from the dried capillary blood spots via this process and the results from standard venous serum samples.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used was laboratory analysis results from venous (serum) blood samples. These are considered the gold standard for lipid profile determination.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This type of device and study does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI development. The device's performance is based on its physical/chemical properties and the established analytical methods, not on a learned model.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Safe At Home Test Kit for Monitoring Hemoglobin A1c is intended for home-use or office-use for collection and qualitative determination of hemoglobin A1c in dried whole blood. The product will be marketed over-the-counter.

The Safe at-Home Test Kit for Hemoglobin A1c is intended as a home-use or office-use device for collection of capillary blood for in vitro diagnostic quantitative office ass arrive for oglobin Alc (glycosylated hemoglobin). The device will be used for monitoring long-term glucose control in people with diabetes. This kit is not indicated for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.

The device is a kit containing the materials necessary to collect a whole blood sample on a filter paper card and return the card by mail to the laboratory for determination of hemoglobin A1c. The kit comprises of a filter paper card in a resealable shipping bag containing a desiccant pouch, alcohol prep pad, disposable lancets, bandage strip instruction booklet, a return envelope, and a patient test authorization form.

The provided document, K991850, describes the "Safe At Home Test Kit for Monitoring Hemoglobin A1c." Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum correlation coefficient, specific precision ranges). Instead, it broadly states that the studies were designed to evaluate "precision and correlation" and that the "evaluation studies provided evidence that results obtained using blood samples from untrained lay users correlate well with whole blood samples and capillary blood samples collected by trained health care professionals."

A more direct "reported device performance" is also not provided in quantitative detail. The document concludes with a qualitative statement: "Study subjects indicated that the kit is acceptable as designed."

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "Performance studies were conducted on blood samples collected by both a trained health care professional and the lay user at three different geographical sites." It does not specify the number of samples or participants.
• Data Provenance: The studies were conducted at "three different geographical sites," suggesting a prospective collection of data. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but given the FDA submission, it's highly likely to be the USA. Data was collected from "lay user" and "a trained health care professional," with venous blood samples collected by the healthcare professional and capillary samples self-collected by patients.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: The document refers to "a trained health care professional" who collected corresponding venous blood samples. Their specific qualifications (e.g., physician, nurse, phlebotomist) are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not mention any adjudication method for the test set. It describes a comparison between samples collected by lay users/healthcare professionals and corresponding venous blood samples.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a blood collection kit, 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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical kit for blood collection and is not an algorithm that operates in a standalone manner. The "performance" refers to the integrity of the collected sample and its correlation with laboratory results.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The ground truth appears to be based on laboratory-determined percent hemoglobin A1c from venous blood samples collected by a trained healthcare professional. The document states:
"A corresponding venous blood sample was collected by the health care professional in order to compare whole blood sample results to those obtained from dried blood samples collected on the Safe At Home Kit."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided in the document. The concept of a "training set" typically applies to machine learning algorithms, which is not the primary focus of the performance study for this blood collection kit.

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

This information is not provided as there is no mention of a training set in the context of an algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device