Search Results

This product is intended for in vitro diagnostic for the quantitative calibration of automated, semi-automated, or manual clinical chemistry systems for the measurement of ammonia, ethanol and lactate. Each lot of DOCUMENT" Ammonia, Ethanol, Lactate Calibrator has lot specific calibration set point values for the various analytical systems on which is was assayed. This material is not intended for use on those clinical chemistry systems employing reflectance spectroscopy.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a calibrator device, not a study report or clinical trial. Therefore, it does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, study details, or ground truth establishment.

The document states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, which is the basis for its clearance, but it does not present data from a study demonstrating specific performance metrics against acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is intended for use as an unassayed control material on the Abbott LCx Probe System with the Abbott Chlamydia Amplification Kit in the qualitative determination of Chlamydia trachomatis.

This product is intended to serve as an unassayed control material to monitor the analytical precision of the LCR amplification system incorporated in the Abbott LCx Probe System used in conjunction with the Abbott Chlamydia Amplification Kit. Response ratios (S/CO) have been set at appropriate positive (+) and negative (-) levels.

This product is intended for in vitro use only.

The DOCUMENT MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS Control is composed of plastic screw cap bottles, 2 mL each, containing two (2) levels of control, positive and negative, for Chlamydia trachomatis in a stabilized biological matrix. The formulation design provides a liquid matrix that is compatible with the Abbott Chlamydia Amplification Kit for assay on the LCx Probe System for the direct, qualitative determination of Chlamydia trachomatis.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a Chlamydia trachomatis control device and does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study demonstrating the device meets those criteria in the way a typical AI/medical device performance study would. It primarily focuses on the device's characteristics, intended use, and comparison to predicate devices for regulatory clearance.

However, I can extract the relevant information that would be considered "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" in the context of this regulatory submission, even if it's not a quantitative clinical study. For a control device, the "acceptance criteria" revolve around its functionality in a diagnostic system, and "performance" is demonstrated by its successful use with the specified assay.

Here's an interpretation based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For a control device, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by its intended use and the "performance" is its functionality within the specified diagnostic system.

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

The document does not detail a specific "test set" in the context of a performance study with a defined sample size as would be expected for a diagnostic or AI device. Instead, the "testing" described is implicitly the characterization and verification of the control material's properties (stability, compatibility, intended response levels) in conjunction with the Abbott LCx system, likely performed during product development and validation by the manufacturer (CASCO Standards).

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a number of "cases" or "patients." It refers to levels of control material (positive and negative).
• Data Provenance: The context suggests this is internal validation data generated by CASCO Standards in the US, used for regulatory submission. It is retrospective in the sense that the data was collected prior to the 510(k) submission.

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

This concept is not directly applicable to a control device like this one. For a control, the "ground truth" is inherent to the control's design and formulation (i.e., it is a positive control, it is a negative control). The performance is linked to whether the control behaves as expected within the validated diagnostic system. There are no "experts" establishing a disease state ground truth for individual samples.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. There's no "adjudication" in the sense of resolving discrepancies between human readers or reconciling different assessments of clinical cases. The performance is determined by the output of the LCx Probe System in response to the control material.

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 device is a diagnostic control, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, and it does not involve human readers interpreting results in a clinical context that would necessitate an MRMC study.

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

This refers to a standalone performance study for an algorithm. Not applicable, as this is a physical control material, not an algorithm. The "standalone" performance here refers to the control itself functioning correctly with the specified instrument system.

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

For this control device, the "ground truth" is defined by the composition and intended behavior of the control material itself. The negative control is formulated to be negative for Chlamydia trachomatis, and the positive control is formulated to elicit a positive response for Chlamydia trachomatis in the specified diagnostic system. This is an engineered ground truth, established during the design and manufacturing of the control. The predicate devices (Abbott LCx Chlamydia Negative Control and Human Urine Positive for Chlamydia trachomatis) serve as benchmarks for the expected performance.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a control material, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

DOCUMENT Ammonia, Ethanol, Lactate Calibrator is intended for in vitro diagnostic use for the quantitative calibration of automated, semi-automated, or manual clinical chemistry systems used for the measurement of ammonia. ethanol, and lactate. DOCUMENT Ammonia. Ethanol, Lactate Calibrator is intended to provide for the quantitative calibration of automated, semi-automated, and manual clinical chemistry systems. Each lot of DOCUMENT Ammonia, Ethanol, Lactate Calibrator has lot specific calibration set point values included for the various analytical systems on which it was assayed.

DOCUMENT Ammonia, Ethanol, Lactate Calibrators consist of one level of an aqueous matrix containing ammonia, ethanol. and lactate. The formulation design provides a liquid calibrator intended for use on automated. semi-automated, and manual clinical chemistry systems for the quantitative determination of ammonia (AMM), ethanol (ALC) and lactate (LAC).

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the DOCUMENI® Ammonia, Ethanol, Lactate Calibrator. The primary purpose of this document is to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not to present a comprehensive study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of a typical AI/medical device study.

Therefore, many of the requested elements (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts, MRMC study, ground truth for training set) are not applicable to the information provided because this is a submission for a calibrator, not a diagnostic or AI-driven medical device.

However, I can extract the relevant information from the document that aligns with your request as much as possible for a calibrator device:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner (e.g., target accuracy, precision thresholds). Instead, the performance is demonstrated by comparing the new calibrator's behavior to that of predicate calibrators through an established protocol. The implicit acceptance criterion is "comparable behavior" or "similar manner" to the predicate devices when used in an analytical system.

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

• Sample Size: The document mentions "patient samples" were used in the equivalence study. It states the study followed "NCCLS EP9 Protocol: Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline." The NCCLS EP9 guideline typically recommends a minimum of 40 patient samples for method comparison and bias estimation. However, the exact number used in this specific study is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Data Provenance: The data provenance is from "patient samples." The country of origin is not specified, and it is a prospective comparison study between the new calibrator and existing predicate calibrators using real patient samples.

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

This is not applicable as the document describes a calibrator device, not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation or ground truth establishment in the traditional sense. The "ground truth" for a calibrator is its assigned value, verified through analytical methods.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This is not applicable for a calibrator device. Adjudication methods are typically used in studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessments.

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 study was not performed. This type of study is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic devices involving human readers, which is not the case for a chemical calibrator.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a calibrator, not an algorithm. The "standalone performance" in this context would be the calibrator's assigned values and its stability, which are implied by the comparison to predicate devices and the stability information provided in the table. The study compared the entire analytical system's performance when using the new calibrator versus the predicate calibrators.

7. The type of ground truth used

For a calibrator, the "ground truth" is established by its traceability (for ammonia and ethanol) or assigned value (for lactate), often derived through validated reference methods or comparison to established reference materials. The comparison study itself uses the predicate calibrators as the reference for "ground truth behavior" within the analytical systems.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. The device is a chemical calibrator, not an AI model requiring a training set.

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

This is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as a control product to assess the analytical performance of immunochemistry systems and clinical chemistry systems using methods for the quantitative measurement of the listed analytes. It is intended to provide the necessary control material required by inspection agencies for the evaluation of system performance. In addition, it will provide assistance when troubleshooting chemistry systems, reagent problems and calibration anomalies.

DOCUMENT® CARDIAC Assayed Controls consist of three levels of a human serum matrix containing creatine kinase isoenzymes, lactate dehydrogenase isoenzymes 1 and 2, and myoglobin. The formulation design provides a liquid matrix intended for use on automated and semi-automated immunochemistry systems and clinical chemistry systems for the determination of total creatine kinase activity (CK), creatine kinase MB mass (CKMB), creatine kinase immunoinhibition (CKII), creatine kinase electrophoresis (CKELEC), total lactate dehydrogenase activity (LD), lactate de dehydrogenase electrophoresis for isoenzyme 1 and 2 (LD1; LD2), and myoqlobin (MYO).

The provided 510(k) summary for the DOCUMENT® CARDIAC Assayed Control describes a control product intended to assess the analytical performance of immunochemistry and clinical chemistry systems. The acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria are not presented in the typical format of an AI/ML device submission, as this is a traditional medical device (control material) submission from 1996.

Therefore, many of the requested fields are not applicable or cannot be extracted directly from the provided text. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on its intended use, technical characteristics, and performance (specifically, inter-assay precision).

Here's an attempt to address your request based on the provided information, noting where information is not applicable (N/A) due to the nature of the device and the submission type:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for DOCUMENT® CARDIAC Assayed Control

The acceptance criteria for the DOCUMENT® CARDIAC Assayed Control are implicitly tied to demonstrating performance similar to existing predicate devices, particularly in terms of inter-assay precision for the listed analytes.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study conducted was a comparative performance study against predicate devices.

7. Test Results / Summary of the Study:

The study's objective was to demonstrate the equivalence of the DOCUMENT® CARDIAC Assayed Control to several predicate devices.

• Methodology: The equivalence was assessed by comparing the inter-assay precision of the listed analytes using the DOCUMENT® CARDIAC Assayed Control against that of the specified predicate devices: Dade CK-MB/Myoglobin Immunoassay Controls, Abbott CK-MB Stat Controls, Bio-Rad Unassayed Chemistry Control, Beckman I.D-Zone Liquid CK Isoenzyme Control, and Beckman I.D-Zone Normal LD Isoenzyme Liquid Control.
• Outcome: The submission states: "The results show that the DOCUMENT®CARDIAC Assayed Control behaves in a similar manner compared to the predicate devices and is suitable for use as a control for the listed analytes." While specific data points (e.g., coefficient of variation values) are not provided in this summary, the conclusion is that the device demonstrated comparable performance to the predicate devices in terms of inter-assay precision.

Additional Information (N/A or Not Provided for this Device/Submission Type):

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: N/A. This is a control material, not an AI/ML diagnostic. The "test set" would be the runs performed with the control on various instruments. The summary does not specify the number of runs or instruments used. Data provenance would typically be internal laboratory testing, likely prospective.
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): N/A. Ground truth for a control material is its assigned value(s) and acceptable range, typically established through extensive in-house characterization and sometimes method comparison studies, not expert consensus on images.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: N/A. Adjudication is not relevant for a control material.
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: N/A. This is completely irrelevant for a control material device.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: N/A. This is not an AI/ML algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For a control material, the "ground truth" is the assigned value for each analyte within the control, which is determined through precise analytical methods and often confirmed through multiple assays and laboratories.
8. The sample size for the training set: N/A. There is no AI/ML training set for this device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: N/A. There is no AI/ML training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as a control product to assess the analytical performance of clinical chemistry systems using methods for the quantitative measurement of ammonia, ethanol, and lactate. It is intended to provide the necessary control material required by inspection agencies for the evaluation of system performance. In addition, it will provide assistance when troubleshooting chemistry systems, reagent problems and calibration anomalies.

DOCUMENT Ammonia, Ethanol, Lactate Assayed Controls consist of three levels of an aqueous matrix containing ammonia, ethanol, and lactate. The formulation design provides a liquid matrix intended for use on automated, semi-automated, and manual clinical chemistry systems for the determination of ammonia (AMM), ethanol (ALC), and lactate (LAC).

The provided 510(k) summary describes the "DOCUMENT® Ammonia, Ethanol, Lactate Assayed Control" and its comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain the level of detail requested for acceptance criteria and a study demonstrating device performance as would be expected for an AI/ML medical device.

This document is for an assayed control product, which is a material used to check the accuracy and precision of laboratory tests, not a diagnostic device that performs an analysis on patient samples. Therefore, many of the requested elements (like sample size for test sets, ground truth by experts, MRMC studies, standalone performance of an algorithm) are not applicable to this type of device.

However, I can extract the relevant information and indicate where details are missing or not applicable.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for DOCUMENT® Ammonia, Ethanol, Lactate Assayed Control

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document explicitly states "The equivalence for this product was carried out by comparing the inter-assay precision" and that the results demonstrated "similar manner" and "suitable for use." However, specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "precision must be within X% of predicate") and the raw performance data (e.g., actual precision values) are not provided in this summary.

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not specified. The study compared the new control product against predicate devices by assessing inter-assay precision, but the number of runs or samples used to determine this precision is not stated.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It can be inferred that the testing was conducted internally by CASCO Standards as part of their product development and validation process. The country of origin is implicitly the USA (Yarmouth, ME), and the study would be considered prospective for the development of this specific control material.

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

• Not Applicable. This is an assayed control product, not a diagnostic device that interprets patient data. The "ground truth" for a control material typically comes from the manufacturing process and metrological traceability, not expert interpretation of results. The stated analytes (ammonia, ethanol, lactate) are precisely measured chemical components.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable. See point 3.

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 not an AI/ML diagnostic device, nor does it involve human readers or interpretation of complex cases. It's a quality control material.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For a control product, the "ground truth" for the declared values of ammonia, ethanol, and lactate would be established through a rigorous analytical chemistry process, typically using highly accurate reference methods and potentially traceable reference materials. The summary does not detail the exact methodology for assigning the assayed values to the control material, but it's fundamentally based on quantitative chemical analysis, not expert consensus or pathology in a diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set. The control material is manufactured and characterized.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as a control product to assess the analytical performance of immunochemistry systems and clinical chemistry systems using methods for the quantitative measurement of the listed analytes. It is intended to provide the necessary control material required by inspection agencies for the evaluation of system performance. In addition, it will provide assistance when troubleshooting chemistry systems, reagent problems and calibration anomalies.

DOCUMENT® TDM ULTRA Assayed Controls consist of three levels of a human serum matrix containing 25 commonly monitored analytes. The formulation design provides a liquid matrix intended for use on automated and semi-automated immunochemistry systems and clinical chemistry systems for the determination of blood acetaminophen (ACET), amikacin (AMI), carbamazepine (CARB), digoxin (DIG), disopyramide (DISO), ethanol (ETOH), ethosuximide (ETHO), gentamicin (GENT) e lidocaine (LIDO), methotrexate (METH), N-acetylprocainamide (NAPA), phenobarbital (PHENO), phenytoin (PHENY), primidone (PRIM), procainamide (PROC), quinidine (QUIN), salicylate (SAL), theophylline (THEO), thyroid-stimulating hormone (hTSH), thyroxine (T4), tobramycin (TOB), triiodothyronine (T3), T-Uptake (TU), valproic acid (VAL), and vancomycin (VANCO).

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the "DOCUMENT® TDM ULTRA Assayed Control" device, which is an in vitro diagnostic control product. This summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a study about a device's performance in diagnosing or screening for a condition in human subjects.

Therefore, many of the requested sections (e.g., sample size for the test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size, ground truth for the training set) are not applicable to this type of device and study. The information provided is primarily about chemical controls and their properties.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding acceptance criteria and reported "performance" in the context of a control device.

Here's the breakdown of the available information:

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

For a control device, "acceptance criteria" and "performance" are primarily related to its characteristics and how it compares to predicate devices in its intended use as a control material. The document highlights the intended use and compares various characteristics. The ultimate "acceptance criterion" here is demonstrating comparable inter-assay precision to the predicate devices. The reported "performance" is that it "behaves in a similar manner" to the predicate devices in this regard.

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

The document states: "The equivalence for this product was carried out by comparing the inter-assay precision of the listed analytes of the DOCUMENT TDM ULTRA Assayed Control to that of Dade Immunoassay Controls Comprehensive Tri-Level, Instrumentation Laboratory TheraChem TDC Therapeutic Drug Controls and Abbott REA Ethanol Serum Control."

• Sample Size: Not specified for the "test set" (which in this context would likely refer to the number of measurements or replicates performed for the inter-assay precision study).
• Data Provenance: Not specified.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Not specified, but generally, studies for control device validation are prospective experiments conducted by the manufacturer.

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 is not applicable. For a control device, "ground truth" is established by the known concentrations (target values) of the analytes within the control material, measured using reference methods. It's not about expert interpretation of clinical images or data.

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

Not applicable, as it's not a diagnostic study requiring human adjudication.

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 control device, not an AI diagnostic algorithm.

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

Not applicable. This is a control device, not an algorithm.

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

For this control device, the "ground truth" for each analyte would be its reference value or target concentration, established by highly accurate and precise analytical methods. The document doesn't explicitly state how these target values were established, but it is standard practice for assayed controls.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a control device, not a machine learning algorithm.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device