Search Results

The Banyan BTI is an in vitro diagnostic chemiluminescent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The assay provides a semi-quantitative measurement of the concentrations of ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 (UCH-L1) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in human serum, and is used with the Synergy 2 Multi-mode Reader.

The assay results obtained from serum collected within 12 hours of suspected head injury are used, along with other available clinical information, to aid in the evaluation of patients 18 years of age and older with suspected traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score 13-15). A negative assay result is associated with the absence of acute intracranial lesions visualized on a head CT (computed tomography) scan.

The Banyan BTI is for prescription use only.

The Banyan BTI consists of two kits, one for the UCH-L1 assay components and one for GFAP assay components. Each kit is packaged individually in a box and consists of the following: 96-well microtiter strip plate, each well coated with mouse monoclonal UCH-L1 antibody or mouse monoclonal GFAP capture antibody (1 plate); UCH-L1 or GFAP calibrators (1 vial); UCH-L1 or GFAP calibrator diluent (1 vial, 4 mL); UCH-L1 or GFAP control 1 (1 vial); UCH-L1 or GFAP control 2 (1 vial); mouse monoclonal UCH-L1 or mouse monoclonal GFAP detection antibody (1 vial, 0.23 mL); UCH-L1 or GFAP detection antibody diluent (2 vials, 6.5 mL per vial for UCH-L1 or 1 vial, 14 mL for GFAP); ready-to-use assay diluent (2 vials, 5 mL per vial for UCH-L1 or 1 vial, 10 mL for GFAP), chemiluminescent substrate solution A (2 vials, 4.5 mL per vial) and solution B (2 vials, 4.5 mL per vial); a wash tablet and four adhesive plate seals. Components within the same kit are intended to be used together. In each kit, sufficient quantities of each component are provided to test samples from up to 30 patients. Each kit is stored at 2°C to 8°C until ready for use.

Here's an analysis of the Banyan Brain Trauma Indicator (BTI) based on the provided document, addressing each of your points:

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

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a single table with performance targets. Instead, it describes various performance evaluations and their results, implying that the observed performance met the manufacturer's pre-determined acceptance criteria (as stated under "Analytical performance: All results met the manufacturer's pre-determined acceptance criteria.").

However, we can infer some key acceptance criteria for clinical performance based on the discussion of clinical validity and Special Controls. The FDA's classification specifies that the device must demonstrate clinical sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive value.

Here's a table summarizing the clinical performance and related analytical performance highlights:

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

• Test Set Sample Size: 1947 evaluable subjects for the primary clinical performance evaluation.
• Data Provenance:
  • Nature: Prospective, multi-site pivotal trial (ALERT-TBI).
  • Country of Origin: 22 clinical sites in three countries: United States (1312 subjects, 67.4%), Germany, and Hungary (635 subjects, 32.6%).
  • Blood Sample Handling: Serum samples were processed at clinical sites, shipped to a third-party biorepository, stored frozen at -80°C, and then tested at three clinical testing sites blinded to diagnosis and clinical status.

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: Three neuroradiologists.
• Qualifications of Experts: The document states they were "neuroradiologists independent from the ALERT-TBI study," and "board-certified radiologists" (from the Special Controls section). No specific years of experience are mentioned.

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

• Adjudication Method: A "2+1" method was used for CT scan interpretation.
  • Two primary reviewers independently evaluated each CT scan (to determine CT-positive, CT-negative, inconclusive, or unreadable).
  • If the interpretations of the two primary reviewers did not agree, the scan was adjudicated by a third reviewer.
  • The third reviewer was "not a primary reviewer and who was blinded to the interpretations from the two primary reviewers."

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done in this context. The Banyan BTI is a blood-based immunoassay, not an AI-powered image interpretation tool that assists human readers. Its purpose is to aid in the decision of whether a CT scan is needed, rather than to assist in interpreting the CT scan itself or to improve human reader performance for CT interpretation.

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

• Yes, the clinical performance study evaluated the Banyan BTI as a standalone test. The device provides a quantitative measurement of UCH-L1 and GFAP, which are then combined to give a "Positive" or "Negative" BTI result based on pre-defined cutoffs. This result is then compared directly to the CT scan ground truth. There is no human-in-the-loop component for the interpretation of the BTI result; the BTI test provides a direct positive/negative output that clinicians use in conjunction with other clinical information. The "human-in-the-loop" aspect comes from the physician's overall clinical decision-making, which includes the BTI result but is not solely dependent on it.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Expert consensus review of head CT scans.
  • The ground truth for the presence of acute intracranial lesions was established by a "Neuroimaging Review Committee, consisting of three neuroradiologists independent from the ALERT-TBI study."
  • This committee performed a "blinded review of each CT scan" and determined whether it was CT-positive or CT-negative based on the presence or absence of acute intracranial lesions, with an adjudication process for disagreements.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Training Set Sample Size: 334 subjects.
  • This set was described as a "completely independent population distinct from the subjects evaluated in the ALERT-TBI pivotal trial."
  • Of these, 102 had a positive adjudicated CT result.

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

• The ground truth for the training set was established through "adjudicated CT result," meaning "the subject had confirmed presence of an acute intracranial lesion per an independent Neuroimaging Review Committee."
• The same standard (adjudicated CT results) was used for both the training and test (pivotal clinical trial) sets. The key difference is that the training set was an independent population used specifically for selecting the optimal cutoff values for the biomarkers using a K-fold cross-validation technique.

Ask a specific question about this device