Search Results

The BIOFIRE FILMARRA Y Tropical Fever (TF) Panel is an automated qualitative, multiplexed, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test intended for use with BIOFIRE FILMARRAY 2.0 and BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TORCH Systems. The BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel detects and identifies selected bacterial, viral, and parasitic nucleic acids directly from EDTA whole blood collected from individuals with signs and/or symptoms of acute febrile illness or recent acute febrile illness and known or suspected exposure to the following target pathogens: chikungunya virus, dengue virus (serotypes 1, 2, 3 and 4), Leptospira spp., and Plasmodium species differentiation of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax/ovale).

Evaluation for more common causes of acute febrile illness (e.g., infections of the upper and lower respiratory tract or gastroenteritis, as well as non-infectious causes) should be considered prior to evaluation with this panel. Results are meant to be used in conjunction with other clinical, epidemiologic, and laboratory data, in accordance with the guidelines provided by the relevant public health authorities.

The BIOFIRE FILMARRA Y TF Panel is not intended to be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other management decisions. Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other organisms not included on the BIOFIRE FILMARRA Y TF Panel, nor do negative results rule out infection. Negative results from the BIOFIRE FILMARRA Y TF Panel may require additional testing if clinically indicated. Not all pathogens that cause acute febrile illness are detected by this test, and negative results do not rule out the presence of other infections.

In the United States, patient travel history, exposure risk, and consultation of the CDC Yellow Book should be considered prior to use of the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel as some pathogens are more common in certain geographical locations.

The BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel is a rebranded version of the BioFire Global Fever Panel. It is designed to simultaneously identify 6 pathogens from whole blood specimens collected in EDTA tubes. The BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel is compatible with BioFire's PCR-based in vitro diaqnostic BIOFIRE® FILMARRAY® 2.0 and BIOFIRE® FILMARRAY® TORCH Systems for infectious disease testing. A panel-specific software module (i.e., BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel pouch module software) is used to perform BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel testing on these systems. Results from the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel test are available within about one hour.

A test is initiated by loading Hydration into one port of the pouch and a whole blood or positive blood culture specimen mixed with the provided Sample Buffer into the port of the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel pouch and placing it in a BIOFIRE System. The pouch contains all the reacents required for speciment testing and analysis in a freezedried format; the addition of Hydration and Sample/Buffer Mix rehydrates the reagents. After the pouch is prepared, the BIOFIRE Software quides the user though the pouch into the instrument, scanning the pouch barcode, entering the sample identification, and initiating the run.

The BIOFIRE System contains a coordinated system of inflatable bladders and seal points, which act on the pouch to control the movement of liquid between the pouch blisters. When a bladder is inflated over a reagent blister, it forces liquid from the blister into connecting channels. Alternatively, when a seal is placed over a connecting channel it acts as a valve to open or close a channel. In addition, electronically-controlled pneumatic pistons are positioned over multiple plungers in order to deliver the rehydrated reagents into the blisters at the appropriate times. Two Peltier devices control heating and cooling of the pouch to drive the PCR reactions and the melt curve analysis.

Nucleic acid extraction occurs within the BIOFIRE pouch using mechanical and chemical lysis followed by purification using standard magnetic bead technology. After extracting and purifying nucleic acids from the unprocessed sample, the BIOFIRE system performs a nested multiplex PCR that is executed in two stages. During the first stage, the BIOFIRE System performs a single, large volume, highly multiplexed reverse transcription PCR (reaction. The products from first stage PCR are then diluted and combined with a fresh, primer-free master mix and a fluorescent double stranded DNA binding dye. The solution is then distributed to each wells contain sets of primers designed specifically to amplify sequences internal to the PCR products generated during the first stage PCR reaction. The 2nd stage PCR, or nested PCR, is performed in single plex fashion in each well of the end of the 2nd stage PCR, the array is interrogated by melt curve analysis for the detection of signature amplicons denoting the presence of specific targets. A digital camera placed in front of the 2nd stage PCR captures fluorescent images of the PCR reactions and software interprets the data.

The BIOFIRE Software automatically interprets the results of each DNA melt curve analysis and combines the data with the results of the internal pouch controls to provide a test result for each organism on the panel.

This document describes the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Tropical Fever (TF) Panel, a rebranded version of the BioFire Global Fever Panel (K220870). The submission is a Special 510(k), indicating that the modifications are minor and do not affect the fundamental scientific technology, performance claims, or risk of the device. Therefore, the acceptance criteria and study proving its performance are based on the predicate device, the BioFire Global Fever Panel (K220870), as the performance claims of the rebranded panel remain identical.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a re-branding with identical performance claims, the "acceptance criteria" for the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel are implicitly met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device, which has already met its own acceptance criteria. The document states: "The performance claims of the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel remain identical to the predicate BioFire Global Fever Panel."

Therefore, the performance data provided would be from the studies conducted for the predicate device, K220870 (BioFire Global Fever Panel). While the specific performance table demonstrating these results is not directly included in the provided text, the implication is that the predicate met the necessary performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy for each target pathogen).

For illustrative purposes, if this were a new device submission, a table would look like this (conceptual, based on the device type):

The document explicitly states that the performance claims are identical to the predicate, meaning the predicate's performance metrics serve as the "acceptance criteria" implicitly met by this re-branding.

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

The provided text does not contain the specific sample sizes used for the clinical/test set for the predicate device (K220870). It also does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. Such details would typically be found in the original 510(k) submission for K220870 or its associated clinical study reports.

However, given it's a panel for tropical fevers, it's highly probable that the data would be from regions where these pathogens are endemic, and likely include both prospective and/or retrospective samples to
cover various disease states and prevalence.

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

For an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device like the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel, especially one that detects nucleic acids, the "ground truth" for the test set is typically established through a combination of:

• Clinical Diagnosis: Based on patient symptoms, travel history, other laboratory findings, and epidemiological data.
• Confirmatory Laboratory Testing: Often using highly sensitive and specific reference methods (e.g., CDC-validated PCR assays, sequencing, culture where applicable) for the target pathogens.

This process generally does not involve a "number of experts" in the same way an imaging AI ground truth would. Instead, it relies on validated laboratory methods and comprehensive clinical assessment. The qualifications would be laboratory professionals using validated reference methods and clinicians making diagnoses based on standard medical practice. The text does not provide specific details on the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing ground truth for the predicate device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

As the ground truth for an IVD device like this is primarily established by laboratory reference methods and clinical outcomes, an "adjudication method" in the sense of multiple human readers resolving disagreements (common in imaging AI) is not directly applicable. The resolution of discrepancies would involve retesting by reference methods, review of patient charts, or further clinical investigation, rather than expert consensus reading of images.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done, and is not applicable for this type of IVD device. MRMC studies are primarily used for medical imaging AI devices to assess the impact of AI assistance on human reader performance. This device is a qualitative, multiplexed PCR test that provides automated results, not an imaging diagnostic that assists human readers.

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

Yes, the performance study for this device (or its predicate) is inherently a standalone performance assessment. The BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel is an automated test. The "algorithm" (the instrument's software interpreting PCR data) provides the final qualitative result (positive/negative for each pathogen) without a human interpreting raw data or images. The results are automatically interpreted and reported. The human "in the loop" is the lab technician who performs the test and interprets the results in a clinical context, but not one who influences the primary diagnostic output of the device itself.

The description explicitly states: "The BIOFIRE Software automatically interprets the results of each DNA melt curve analysis and combines the data with the results of the internal pouch controls to provide a test result for each organism on the panel." This confirms its standalone nature.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for an IVD diagnostic like this is typically established by:

• Reference Laboratory Methods: Gold standard molecular assays (e.g., highly sensitive and specific PCR assays, sometimes developed or validated by national reference labs like the CDC), possibly combined with sequencing.
• Clinical Data and Outcomes: Patient symptoms, travel history, other clinical laboratory findings, and sometimes follow-up data to confirm true positive or true negative status.

The document states: "The BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TF Panel is not intended to be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other management decisions. Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other organisms... nor do negative results rule out infection. Negative results... may require additional testing if clinically indicated." This implies that while the device offers a direct result, the final clinical diagnosis relies on a broader set of information, and the device's performance is validated against established methods or confirmed clinical diagnoses.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide details on the training set for the algorithm (software). For PCR-based IVD devices, the "training" analogous to machine learning often involves significant laboratory work to:

• Design and optimize primers/probes: Extensive testing with known positive and negative samples, various concentrations of targets, and interfering substances.
• Establish cutoff values: For determining positive vs. negative results based on fluorescence thresholds and melt curve characteristics.
• Verify analytical performance: Limit of detection (LoD), inclusivity, exclusivity, cross-reactivity, precision, etc.

This "training" or development process heavily relies on characterized biological samples (clinically relevant strains, spiked samples, negative controls). The specific number of samples for each stage of this development is not given in this document, as it focuses on the equivalence to a predicate.

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

For IVD development, the ground truth for training/development samples is established through:

• Well-characterized Isolates/Strains: Using verified pathogen cultures or nucleic acid extracts with confirmed identity and quantification.
• Spiking Studies: Adding known amounts of target nucleic acids into clinical matrix (e.g., whole blood) from healthy donors.
• Known Clinical Samples: Samples previously characterized by highly accurate reference methods or confirmed clinical diagnosis.

This process ensures that the assay design (e.g., primer selection, PCR conditions, interpretation algorithms) effectively detects and differentiates the target pathogens from non-targets and in the presence of various confounding factors. The specific methodology for ground truth establishment for the training set of the predicate is not detailed in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel (BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel) is a multiplexed nucleic acid test intended for use with BIOFIRE FILMARRAY 2.0 (BIOFIRE 2.0) or BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TORCH (BIOFIRE TORCH) systems for the simultaneous detection of multiple respiratory viral and bacterial nucleic acids, as well as select antimicrobial resistance genes, in sputum-like speciorated sputum, or endotracheal aspirates) or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)-like specimens (BAL) obtained from individuals suspected of lower respiratory tract infection.

The following bacteria are reported semi-quantitatively with bins representing approximately 10^4, 10^5, or ≥10°7 genomic copies of bacterial nucleic acid per milliliter (copies/mL) of specimen, to aid in estimating relative abundance of nucleic acid from these common bacteria within a specimen:

Bacteria reported with bins of 10^4, 10^5, 10^6, or ≥10^7 copies/mL

• · Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex
• · Klebsiella oxytoca
• · Serratia marcescens
• · Enterobacter cloacae complex
• Klebsiella pneumoniae group
• · Staphylococcus aureus
• · Escherichia coli
• · Moraxella catarrhalis
• · Streptococcus agalactiae
• Haemophilus influenzae
• · Proteus spp.
• · Streptococcus pneumoniae
• Klebsiella aerogenes
• Pseudomonas aeruginosa
• · Streptococcus pyogenes

The following atypical bacteria, viruses, and antimicrobial resistance genes are reported qualitatively:

Atypical Bacteria

• Chlamydia pneumoniae
• · Legionella pneumophila
• Mycoplasma pneumoniae

Viruses

• · Adenovirus
• Human rhinovirus/enterovirus
• · Parainfluenza virus
• · Coronavirus
• · Influenza A virus
• Respiratory syncytial virus

• Human metapneumovirus

• Influenza B virus
  Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

• · CTX-M

• IMP

• КРС

• NDM

• OXA-48-like

• VIM

• · mecA/C and MREJ (MRSA)

The detection and identification of specific viral and bacterial nucleic acids, as well as the estimation of relative abundance of nucleic acid from common bacterial analytes, within specimens collected from individuals exhibiting signs and/or symptoms of a respiratory infection, aids in the diagnosis of lower respiratory infection with other clinical and epidemiological information. The results of this test should not be used as for diagnosis, treatment, or other patient management decisions.

Negative results in the setting of a respiratory illness may be due to infection with pathogens that are not detected by this test, pathogens below the limit of detection, or in the case of bacterial analytes, present at levels below the lowest reported 10^4 copies/mL bin. Detection of analytes does not rule out co-infection with other organisms; the agent(s) detected by the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel may not be the definite cause of disease. Additional laboratory testing (e.g. bacterial and viral culture, immunofluorescence, and radiography) may be necessary when evaluating a patient with possible lower respiratory tract infection.

Detection of bacterial nucleic acid may be indicative of colonizing or normal respiratory flora and may not indicate the causative agent of pneumonia. Semi-quantitative Bin (copies/mL) results generated by the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel are not equivalent to CFU/mL and do not consistently correlate with the quantity of bacterial analytes compared to CFU/mL. For specimens with multiple bacteria detected, the relative abundance of nucleic acids (copies/mL) may not correlate with the relative abundance of bacteria as determined by culture (CFU/mL). Clinical correlation is advised to determine significance of semi-quantitative Bin (copies/mL) for clinical management.

The antimicrobial resistance gene detected may or may not be associated with the agent(s) responsible for disease. Negative results for these antimicrobial resistance gene assays do not indicate susceptibility to corresponding classes of antimicrobials, as multiple mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance exist.

Antimicrobial resistance can occur via multiple mechanisms. A "Not Detected" result for a genetic marker of antimicrobial resistance does not indicate susceptibility to associated antimicrobial drugs or drug classes. A "Detected" result for a genetic marker of antimicrobial resistance cannot be definitively linked to the microorganism(s) detected. Culture is required to obtain isolates for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel results should be used in conjunction with culture results for determination of bacterial susceptibility or resistance.

Due to the genetic similarity between human rhinovirus and enterovirus, the test cannot reliably differentiate them. A positive Rhinovirus/Enterovirus result should be followed up using an alternate method (e.g., cell culture or sequence analysis) if differentiation is required.

Culture is required to identify pathogens not detected by the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel, to further speciate analytes in genus, complex, or group results if desired, to identify bacterial pathogens present below the 10°4 copies/mL bin if desired, and for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel plus:

The BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel plus (BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus) is a multiplexed nucleic acid test intended for use with BIOFIRE FILMARRAY 2.0 (BIOFIRE 2.0) or BIOFIRE FILMARRAY TORCH (BIOFIRE TORCH) systems for the simultaneous detection and identification of nucleic acids from Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and multiple respiratory viral and bacterial nucleic acids, as well as select antimicrobial resistance genes, in sputum-like specimens (induced or expectorated sputum, or endotracheal aspirates) or bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)-like specimens (BAL or mini-BAL) obtained from individuals meeting MERS-CoV clinical and/or epidemiological criteria.

Testing with BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus should not be performed unless the patient meets clinical and/or epidemiologic criteria for testing suspected MERS-CoV specimens. Thical signs and symptoms assocated with MERS-CoV infection, contact with a probable or confirmed MERS-CoV case, history of travel to geographic locations where MERS-CoV cases were detected, or other epidemiological links for which MERS-CoV testing may be indicated.

The following bacteria are reported semi-quantitatively with bins representing approximately 10^4, 10^5, or ≥10°7 genomic copies of bacterial nucleic acid per milliliter (copies/mL) of specimen, to aid in estimating relative abundance of nucleic acid from these common bacteria within a specimen:

Bacteria reported with bins of 10^4, 10^5, 10^6, or ≥10^7 copies/mL

• Acinetobacter calcoaceticus-baumannii complex
• Enterobacter cloacae complex
• Escherichia coli
• Haemophilus influenzae
• Klebsiella aerogenes
• · Klebsiella oxytoca
• · Klebsiella pneumoniae group
• Moraxella catarrhalis
• Proteus spp.
• Pseudomonas aeruginosa
• · Serratia marcescens
• Staphylococcus aureus
• Streptococcus agalactiae
• · Streptococcus pneumoniae
• · Streptococcus pyogenes

The following atypical bacteria, viruses, and antimicrobial resistance genes are reported qualitatively: Atypical Bacteria

• Chlamydia pneumoniae
• · Legionella pneumophila
• Mycoplasma pneumoniae

Viruses

• · Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)
• Adenovirus
• Coronavirus
• Human metapneumovirus
• Human rhinovirus/enterovirus
• · Influenza A virus
• Influenza B virus
• Parainfluenza virus
• · Respiratory syncytial virus

Antimicrobial Resistance Genes

• CTX-M

• IMP

• · KPC

• NDM

• OXA-48-like

• VIM

• · mecA/C and MREJ (MRSA)

The detection and identification of specific viral and bacterial nucleic acids from MERS-CoV and other respiratory pathogens, as well as the estimation of relative abundance of nucleic acid from common bacterial analytes, within specimens collected from individuals meeting MERS-CoV clinical and/or epidemiological criteria aids in the differential diagnosis of MERS-CoV infection, if used in conjunction with other clinical and epidemiological information in accordance with the guidelines provided by the appropriate public health authorities.

BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus MERS-CoV positive results are for the presumptive identification of MERS-CoV. The definitive identification of MERS-CoV requires additional testing and confirmation procedures in consultation with the appropriate public health authorities (e.g., local or state public health departments, etc.) for whom reporting is necessary. The diagnosis of MERS-CoV infection must be made based on history, signs, symptoms, exposure likelihood, and other laboratory evidence in addition to the identification of MERS-CoV.

BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus MERS-CoV negative results, even in the context of a BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus positive result for one or more of the common respiratory pathogens, do not preclude MERS-CoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. The levels of MERS-CoV that would be present in sputum-like or BAL-like specimens from individuals with early infection and from asymptomatic MERS-CoV carriers are not well understood. A negative BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus MERS-CoV result in an asymptomatic individual does not rule out the possibility of future illness and does not demonstrate that the individual is not infectious.

Viral culture should not be attempted on specimens with positive BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus results for MERS-CoV unless a BSL 3 facility is available to receive and culture specimens.

Negative results in the setting of a respiratory illness may be due to infection with pathogens that are not detected by this test, pathogens below the limit of detection, or in the case of bacterial analytes, present at levels below the lowest reported 10^4 copies/mL bin. Detection of analytes does not rule out co-infection with other organisms; the agent(s) detected by the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus may not be the definite cause of disease. Additional laboratory testing (e.g. bacterial and viral culture, immunofluorescence, and radiography) may be necessary when evaluating a patient with possible lower respiratory tract infection.

Detection of bacterial nucleic acid may be indicative of colonizing or normal respiratory flora and may not indicate the causative agent of pneumonia. Semi-quantitative Bin (copies/mL) results generated by the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus are not equivalent to CFU/mL and do not consistently correlate with the quantity of bacterial analytes compared to CFU/mL. For specimens with multiple bacteria detected, the relative abundance of nucleic acids (copies/mL) may not correlate with the relative abundance of bacteria as determined by culture (CFU/mL). Clinical correlation is advised to determine significance of semi-quantitative Bin (copies/mL) for clinical management.

The antimicrobial resistance gene detected may or may not be associated with the agent(s) responsible for disease. Negative results for these antimicrobial resistance gene assays do not indicate susceptibility to corresponding classes of antimicrobials, as multiple mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance exist.

Antimicrobial resistance can occur via multiple mechanisms. A "Not Detected" result for a genetic marker of antimicrobial resistance does not indicate susceptibility to associated antimicrobial drugs or drug classes. A "Detected" result for a genetic marker of antimicrobial resistance cannot be definitively linked to the microorganism(s) detected. Culture is required to obtain isolates for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus results should be used in conjunction with culture results for determination of bacterial susceptibility or resistance.

Due to the genetic similarity between human rhinovirus and enterovirus, the test cannot reliably differentiate them. A positive Rhinovirus/Enterovirus result should be followed up using an alternate method (e.g., cell culture or sequence analysis) if differentiation is required.

Culture is required to identify pathogens not detected by the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus, to further speciate analytes in genus, complex, or group results if desired, to identify bacterial pathogens present below the 10°4 copies/mL bin if desired, and for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

The BIOFIRE® FILMARRAY® Pneumonia Panel and BIOFIRE® FILMARRAY® Pneumonia Panel plus use nested, multiplex reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR), followed by melting curve analysis for the detection of select organisms and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes in sputum-like (induced and expectorated sputum as well as endotracheal aspirate, ETA) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)-like (BAL and mini-BAL) specimens. The panels allow for the identification of specific bacteria, atypical bacteria, viruses, and AMR genes as indicated in Table 1. The BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel and BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus pouches are identical, but the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel plus includes reporting of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), which is not included in the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel. Reporting of MERS-CoV is controlled through software masking of the MERS-CoV result for the BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel.

The BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panels are compatible with bioMérieux's PCR-based in vitro diagnostic BIOFIRE® FILMARRAY® 2.0 and BIOFIRE® FILMARRAY® TORCH Systems for infectious disease testing. Specific software module (i.e. BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel Pouch Module Software) are used to perform BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panels testing on these systems.

This document refers to a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel and BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel plus). This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than presenting a full de novo study with strict acceptance criteria and performance validation against a test set. The document clearly states that the submission is for software updates to mitigate false positive Coronavirus and CTX-M results and that "Reanalysis of the performance data with the modified pouch module software did not result in an overall change of the study conclusions or performance claims for non-clinical/analytical studies."

Therefore, the information typically requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, and standalone performance might not be explicitly detailed in this type of FDA submission as it would be for a de novo marketing authorization. However, I can extract what is available and clarify what is not.

Based on the provided text, here's a breakdown of the requested information:

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

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative table format as might be seen for a new device submission. Instead, the focus is on the impact of the software update on existing performance. The relevant performance change mentioned is:

The document implies that these updated specificities are acceptable because they represent an improvement in mitigating false positives and "did not result in an overall change of the study conclusions or performance claims for non-clinical/analytical studies."

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

The document mentions a "Clinical Prospective Study" for which the Coronavirus specificity numbers are reported. It does not provide the exact sample size for this specific study, nor does it explicitly state the country of origin. It indicates that the reanalysis of existing performance data was done.

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)

This information is not provided in the document. As this is a molecular diagnostic test, ground truth would typically be established by highly sensitive and specific laboratory methods (e.g., PCR, sequencing, culture) rather than expert human interpretation in the way radiologists interpret images.

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

This information is not provided.

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

An MRMC study is not applicable here as this is a molecular diagnostic device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device that involves human reader interpretation.

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

This refers to the performance of the assay itself. The document implicitly discusses the "standalone" performance of the BIOFIRE FILMARRAY Pneumonia Panel and Panel Plus, which is a molecular diagnostic test. The reported specificities are a measure of this standalone performance. The software update is an internal modification to the assay's interpretation logic.

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

The document implies that the ground truth for the clinical performance evaluations was established through highly sensitive and specific methods for pathogen detection, as is standard clinical laboratory practice for molecular diagnostics. It does not explicitly state the specific ground truth methods but mentions that "Culture is required to obtain isolates for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and BIOFIRE Pneumonia Panel results should be used in conjunction with culture results for determination of bacterial susceptibility or resistance." This suggests that culture and other definitive laboratory tests would be part of the ground truth establishment, particularly for bacterial analytes and antimicrobial resistance genes.

8. The sample size for the training set

This document describes a software update to an already cleared device. It does not provide details about a "training set" in the context of machine learning model development. The software update appears to be a rule-based or algorithmic adjustment to optimize melting curve analysis and mitigate cross-reactivity with human genomic DNA, rather than a re-training of a complex AI model. The modification was driven by "routine post-market monitoring and complaint investigations combined with concurrent findings from an internal product development study."

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

As there's no mention of a traditional "training set" in the context of an AI model, this information is not provided. The "ground truth" that informed the software change was likely observations of false positives in clinical samples, identified through investigations and potentially confirmed by orthogonal testing or characterization of the offending interactions (cross-reactivity with hgDNA).

Ask a specific question about this device