Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Digene HCII CT/GC Test is an in vitro nucleic acid hybridization assay with signal amplification using microplate chemiluminescence for the combined qualitative detection of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) DNA in cervical specimens collected with the Digene Cervical Sampler™ (Brush) and the Digene Swab Specimen Collection Kit (Swab). Follow-up testing using the Digene HCII CT-ID and HCII GC-ID Tests is required to identify the organism(s) present in HCII CT/GC DNA Test positive specimens. The HCII CT/GC DNA Test is indicated for use as an initial test to identify symptomatic or asymptomatic women with Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and/or Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) infection.

For In Vitro Diagnostic Use.

The CT/GC DNA Test using Hybrid Capture II technology is a nucleic acid hybridization assay with signal amplification that utilizes microplate chemiluminescent detection. Specimens containing the target DNA hybridize with a specific CT/GC RNA probe cocktail. The resultant RNA:DNA hybrids are captured onto the surface of a microplate well coated with antibodies specific for RNA:DNA hybrids. Immobilized hybrids are then reacted with alkaline phosphatase conjugated antibodies specific for RNA:DNA hybrids, and detected with a chemiluminescent substrate. Several alkaline phosphatase molecules are conjugated to each antibody. Multiple conjugated antibodies bind to each captured hybrid resulting in substantial signal enhancement. As the substrate is cleaved by the bound alkaline phosphatase, light is measured as relative light units (RLUs) on a luminometer. The intensity of the light emitted denotes the presence or absence of target DNA in the specimen.

An RLU measurement equal to or greater than a specified ratio to the positive Cutoff (CO) Value indicates the presence of Chlamydia and/or Neiseria DNA in the specimen. An RLU measurement less than a specified ratio to the positive Cutoff Value indicates the absence of Chlamydia and Neiserria DNA or Chlamydia and Neiseria DNA levels below the detection limit of the assay.

The CT/GC Probe Cocktail contains a probe mixture specifically chosen to eliminate or minimize cross-reactivity with DNA sequences from human cells, other bacterial species, Chlamydia species other than C. trachomatis or Neisseria species other than N. gonorrhoeae. The CT/GC Probe Cocktail supplied with the HCII CT/GC DNA Test is complementary to approximately 39,300 bp (4%) of the Chlamydia trachomatis genomic DNA (1 x 10° bp)23 and 7,500 bp or 100% of the cryptic plasmid; and 9,700 bp (0,5%) of the Neisseria gonorrhoeae genomic DNA (1,9 x 10° bp) 2 and 4,200 bp or 100% of the cryptic plasmid. A specimen positive by the CT/GC Test must be tested by CT-ID or GC-ID or other method to verify organism detection.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the clinical performance targets presented in Tables {8} and {9} for sensitivity and specificity of the combined CT/GC Test with the CT-ID and GC-ID verification system. The device's reported performance is also derived from these tables.

Note: The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria values but presents the observed clinical performance as proof the device is "as safe and effective as the Gen-Probe® device" (the predicate device). The confidence intervals observed indicate that the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval for each metric would serve as a de facto lower bound for acceptance. For the purpose of this analysis, I have established acceptance criteria that the lower limit of the 95% CI should be above a certain threshold (e.g., 86.8% for GC sensitivity based on the observed range for high positivity sites, and 97.2% for CT specificity based on observed range for high positivity sites) to reflect what appears to be satisfactory performance.

Study Details

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

   • Clinical Performance Test Set Size: 1785 specimens {5}.
   • Data Provenance: The specimens were collected from patients at 5 different sites, including STD, Family Planning, and OB/GYN clinics {5}. The document does not explicitly state the country of origin, but given the FDA 510(k) submission, it is assumed to be the United States. The study was prospective in nature, as indicated by the collection of specimens and subsequent testing {5}.

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

   • The ground truth was established by Chlamydia and Gonorrhea culture and DFA (Direct Fluorescent Antibody) testing {5}. These methods are laboratory-based and do not typically involve "experts" in the sense of human readers for image interpretation. The proficiency of the laboratories performing these tests would be assumed. No specific number of experts or their qualifications are mentioned for establishing ground truth via culture/DFA.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The adjudication method involved comparing the HCII CT/GC DNA Test results to the results of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea culture and DFA testing {5}.
   • For specimens that were HCII CT/GC DNA Test-positive/culture-negative, DFA testing was performed on the sediment of the CT culture transport medium {5}.
   • For the verification system (using CT-ID and GC-ID tests), specimens that were CT/GC Test positive and negative by both the CT and GC ID tests were interpreted as negative {7}.
   • PCR testing was performed on some discrepant results (e.g., 37 specimens positive by initial CT/GC Testing and negative by both CT and GC culture, 19 of which were subsequently confirmed by PCR {5}). However, PCR results were "not used to resolve the test results obtained with the CT/GC Test system" and were "for informational purposes only" {7}. Therefore, the primary adjudication was based on culture/DFA results.

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:

   • No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) nucleic acid hybridization assay and does not involve human readers for interpretation in the same way an imaging AI would. The performance is determined algorithmically by measuring relative light units (RLUs) {2}.

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

   • Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was conducted. The device's performance (sensitivity and specificity) was primarily assessed in a standalone manner, comparing its algorithmic output (RLU measurements, interpreted as positive or negative) against the established ground truth of culture and DFA {5, 8, 9}. The interpretive step for positive results involved follow-up with CT-ID and GC-ID tests, which is part of the overall device's described workflow {7}.

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

   • The primary ground truth used was culture (specifically Chlamydia and Gonorrhea culture) and DFA (Direct Fluorescent Antibody) testing {5}. This is a laboratory-based gold standard for diagnosing these infections. PCR was used for informational purposes only for some discrepant results and not for establishing the primary ground truth {7}.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm. This device is a molecular diagnostic assay based on nucleic acid hybridization, not a machine learning model that typically undergoes a training phase with a distinct dataset. The "training" in this context would refer to the assay's development and optimization, rather than an ML training dataset.

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

   • As there's no explicit "training set" for an AI/ML model described, this question is not directly applicable. For the analytical sensitivity testing of the assay, the "ground truth" was established by using known quantities (dilutions) of specific Chlamydia trachomatis serovars and Neisseria gonorrhoeae strains {2, 3, 4}. This involved testing a "non-clinical panel" of 114 isolates of N. gonorrhoeae, 15 serovars of C. trachomatis, and other related Chlamydia species {2}. The concentrations (EB's/ml or CFU/ml) were known and used to determine the Limit of Detection (LOD) {2}.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Digene HCII GC-ID Test is a nucleic acid hybridization assay with signal amplification using microplate chemiluminescence for the qualitative detection of N. gonorrhoeae DNA in cervical specimens collected using the Digene Cervical Sampler™ (Digene cervical brush and Digene Specimen Transport Medium) and in cervical specimens collected using the Digene Swab Specimen Collection Kit ([Swab SCK] Dacron® swab and Digene Specimen Transport Medium). The Digene HCII GC-ID Test is indicated for use as an aid in diagnosing infection with N. gonorrhoeae in symptomatic or asymptomatic females.

The HCII GC-ID Test may be used alone or as a supplemental test to the Digene HCII CT/GC Test to detect N. gonorrhoeae in specimens that are positive by the HCII CT/GC Test.

The Digene GC-ID Test using Hybrid Capture II technology is a nucleic acid hybridization assay with signal amplification that utilizes microplate chemiluminescent detection. Specimens containing the target DNA hybridize with a specific GC RNA probe cocktail. The resultant RNA:DNA hybrids are captured onto the surface of a microplate well coated with antibodies specific for RNA:DNA hybrids. Immobilized hybrids are then reacted with alkaline phosphatase conjugated antibodies specific for RNA:DNA hybrids, and detected with a chemiluminescent substrate. Several alkaline phosphatase molecules are conjugated to each antibody. Multiple conjugated antibodies bind to each captured hybrid resulting in substantial signal amplification. As the substrate is cleaved by the bound alkaline phosphatase, light is emitted which is measured as relative light units (RLUs) on a luminometer. The intensity of the light emitted denotes the presence or absence of target DNA in the specimen.

An RLU measurement equal to or greater than the Cutoff Value indicates the presence of GC DNA in the specimen. An RLU measurement less than the Cutoff Value indicates the absence of GC DNA or GC DNA levels below the detection limit of the assay.

The GC Probe Cocktail contains a probe mixture specifically chosen to eliminate or minimize cross-reactivity with DNA sequences from human cells, other bacterial species, or Neisseria species other than gonorrhoeae. The GC Probe Cocktail supplied with the Digene GC-JD Test is complementary to approximately 9,700 bp or 0.5% of the Neisseria gonorrhoeae genomic DNA (1.9 x 108 bp) . One probe is complementary to 100% of the cryptic plasmid of 4,200 bp.

The Digene HCII GC-ID Test is a nucleic acid hybridization assay for the qualitative detection of N. gonorrhoeae DNA. The acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria are detailed below.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria for the clinical performance (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV). However, it presents the calculated performance characteristics, which serve as the "reported device performance." The non-clinical performance (precision and analytical sensitivity) demonstrates compliance with established laboratory testing standards.

Non-Clinical Performance:

• Panel 1: 10.68%
• Panel 2: 11.50%
• Panel 3 (low concentration): 4.65%
• Panel 4: 5.41%
• Panel 5: 6.50%
• Panel 6: 5.83%
  Qualitative results were 100% (54/54) in agreement with expected results. |
  | | Between Instrument Variability (RLU/CO %CV) | Low variability %CV when using different instruments. | %CVs for RLU/CO:
• Panel 1: 1.73%
• Panel 2: 1.56%
• Panel 3 (low concentration): 1.10%
• Panel 4: 1.37%
• Panel 5: 0.69%
• Panel 6: 1.91% |
  | | Within Run Variability (RLU/CO %CV) | Low variability %CV for tests run in the same batch. | %CVs for RLU/CO:
• Panel 1: 28.26%
• Panel 2: 34.94%
• Panel 3 (low concentration): 10.89%
• Panel 4: 8.85%
• Panel 5: 13.48%
• Panel 6: 13.12% |
  | | Total Precision (RLU/CO %CV) | Overall low variability %CV over repeated tests under various conditions. | %CVs for RLU/CO:
• Panel 1: 28.20%
• Panel 2: 35.42%
• Panel 3 (low concentration): 11.96%
• Panel 4: 9.08%
• Panel 5: 13.26%
• Panel 6: 12.90% |
  | Analytical Sensitivity | Limit of Detection (LOD) (CFU/assay) | Ability to detect N. gonorrhoeae at low concentrations across a range of isolates, auxotypes, and strains. (No specific numerical target is stated, but the aim is to establish the LOD for the test.) | Varied from 25 to 50,000 CFU/assay for 114 N. gonorrhoeae isolates.
  Average detectable limit: 974 to 2887 CFU/assay.
  Overall average LOD: 1931 CFU/assay (3.8 x 104 CFU/ml). |

Clinical Performance (Brush Specimens - All Patients Combined, using 1.0 RLU/CO cutoff):

Note: The document provides results for both 1.0 and 2.5 RLU/CO cutoffs. The table above uses the 1.0 RLU/CO cutoff as it generally represents higher sensitivity, and the primary table uses this as the first reported value. Differences for the 2.5 cutoff are parenthetically provided in the original text.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size (Clinical Study): 1825 clinical specimens.
  • Brush specimens: 1359 (Table 3)
  • Swab specimens: 466 (Table 4)
• Data Provenance: Prospective. Specimens were collected from patients at 5 different clinical sites (STD, Family Planning, and OB/GYN clinics) for the multi-center clinical trial. Countries of origin are not specified but implied to be within the US given the FDA submission.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• The ground truth for the clinical study was primarily established using Gonorrhea culture. This is a laboratory-based method, not typically requiring "experts" in the sense of physicians or radiologists making subjective calls, but rather trained microbiologists performing and interpreting the cultures.
• For specimens that were Digene GC-ID Test-positive/culture-negative, PCR testing was performed. This also relies on laboratory expertise. The document states that "Digene GC-ID Test results were NOT resolved by PCR test results and therefore PCR had no impact on the calculations of the Digene GC-ID Test performance characteristics." This implies PCR was used for further investigation but not to alter the primary ground truth against which sensitivity/specificity were calculated.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The primary ground truth for the clinical study was Gonorrhea culture. For discordant results (GC-ID positive/Culture negative), PCR testing was performed for additional information, but the document explicitly states that the Digene GC-ID Test results were not resolved by PCR test results for the calculation of performance characteristics. Therefore, there was no expert adjudication process to determine a "final" ground truth from multiple conflicting results; culture was the single arbiter for the main performance calculations.

In the section "Retesting of HCII CT/GC Test Positive Specimens using the GC-ID Test," combined GC Culture and PCR was used as a reference standard, and an equivocal zone was defined for the GC-ID test, where specimens falling in this zone could be retested.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance was not mentioned or conducted. This device is an in vitro diagnostic test that directly detects nucleic acids, not an imaging device requiring human interpretation, so human reader studies are not applicable.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

Yes, the study primarily evaluated the standalone performance of the Digene HCII GC-ID Test. The reported sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV are measures of the algorithm's (test's) performance independent of human interpretation or assistance, against a gold standard (culture).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Study: The primary ground truth for the clinical performance evaluation was Gonorrhea culture.
• Discordant Resolution (for investigational purposes, not main metrics): PCR testing was used to further investigate Digene GC-ID Test-positive/culture-negative specimens.
• Retesting HCII CT/GC Positive Specimens: Combined GC Culture and PCR.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" for the Digene HCII GC-ID Test in the context of an algorithm or machine learning model. This device is a biochemical assay, not a software algorithm that undergoes machine learning training. The data presented is for validation and performance characteristics.

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

As noted above, there is no mention of a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device's design and probe cocktail selection (complementary to N. gonorrhoeae genomic DNA, minimizing cross-reactivity) would be based on scientific knowledge and laboratory development, not iterative training on a labeled dataset.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Digene HCII CT-ID Test is an in-vitro nucleic acid hybridization assay with signal amplification using microplate chemiluminescence for the qualitative detection of C trachomatis DNA in cervical specimens collected using the Digene Cervical Sampler™ (Cervical Brush and Speciment Transport Medium) and in cervical specimens collected using the Digene Swab Specimen Collection Kit (Dacron Swab and Speciment Transport Medium). The Digene HCII CT-ID Test is indicated for use with symptomatic or asymptomatic women as evidence of infection with C. trachomatis.

The HCII CT-ID Test may be used alone or as a supplemental test to the Digene HCII CT/GC Test to detect C. trachomatis DNA in specimens found positive by the Digene HCII CT/GC Test.

The Digene HCII CT-ID Test is a nucleic acid, signal enhanced, hybridization, microplate assay using chemiluminescence for the qualitative detection of C. trachomatis (CT) DNA in cervical specimens collected using the Digene Cervical Sampler™ and in cervical specimens collected with a Dacron swab and placed in Digene Specimen Transport Medium. The Digene HCII CT-ID Test is indicated for use as an aid in diagnosing infection with C. trachomatis in symptomatic or asymptomatic women. The HCII CT-ID Test may be used as a stand-alone test or may be used as a supplemental test to the Digene HCII CT/GC Test for identification of C. trachomatis in specimens that are positive by the HCII CT/GC Test.

Specimens potentially containing CT DNA are denatured and then hybridized with a specific RNA probe cocktail. This cocktail contains a probe mixture chosen to minimize or eliminate cross-reactivity with DNA sequences from human cells, other bacterial species, Chlamydia species other than trachomatis, or sequences from other organisms common in urogenital specimens. The CT probe cocktail supplied with the Digene CT-ID Assay is complementary to approximately 39,300 base pairs or 4% of the C. trachomatis genome (1 x 10 base pairs) and 100% of the cryptic plasmid.

The RNA:DNA hybrids resulting from hybridization are immobilized (captured) on the surface of a microplate-well, which has been coated with antibodies specific for RNA:DNA hybrids. The antibodies on the well surface capture the RNA:DNA hybrids. The immobilized hybrids are then reacted with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated antibody and a chemiluminescent substrate. As the substrate is cleaved by the bound alkaline phosphatase, photons are emitted and measured as Relative Light Units (RLUs) using a standard, FDA-cleared luminometer such as the DML 2000™ - Increased photon emission, resulting in an enhanced signal, is achieved by conjugating multiple alkaline phosphatase molecules to each antibody molecule. Multiple antibodies bind to each RNA:DNA hybrid, further enhancing the signal.

The HCII CT-ID Test provides an RLU measurement that is qualitatively interpreted. The Positive Cutoff Value is equal to the mean of three Positive Control values. Each specimen RLU measurement is converted to a ratio of the Positive Cutoff Value. This conversion calculation is performed automatically by the Digene DML™ 2000 Microplate Luminometer software. Alternatively, the conversion may be calculated manually, Specimens with RLU/Cutoff values of 5.0 are considered positive for CT DNA. Specimens with RLU/Cutoff values between 0.8 ≥ 5.0 are considered to be equivocal and are repeat tested in duplicate. With the repeat tests, a RLU/Cutoff Value of 1.0 is applied. If two of the three replicates fall above 1.0, the presence of C. trachomatis DNA is indicated. If at least two of the three replicates fall below 1.0, the presence of C. trachomatis DNA is not indicated.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study findings for the Digene HCII CT-ID Test, based on the provided text:

The document combines a 510(k) summary with results from a clinical study comparing the Digene HCII CT-ID Test to a "gold standard" (cell culture with DFA confirmation).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria for sensitivity, specificity, NPV, or PPV. However, it presents the results of a multicenter study comparing the Digene HCII CT-ID Test against the gold standard (Cell Culture/DFA). We can infer the expected performance levels from the 'All' sites aggregated results.

Inferred Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Aggregated "All" Sites):

| Performance Metric | Implied Acceptance Criteria (e.g., from Predicate or clinical utility) | Reported Device Performance (All Sites Combined) |
| :----------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Sensitivity | High sensitivity is crucial for infectious disease diagnostics to minimize false negatives. The predicate device (Gen-Probe Pace 2 System) would have established a benchmark. | 97.25% (95% CI: 92.2-99.4) for "HCII CT-ID Test versus CT Culture/DF/" cohort
100.00% (95% CI: 84.6-100) for "CT/GC Positive/Culture Negative" cohort
84.00% (95% CI: 63.9-95.5) for "Mixed Symptomatic/Asymptomatic" cohort
100.00% (95% CI: 29.2-100) for "Asymptomatic Patients, Dacron Swab Only" cohort |
| Specificity | High specificity is important to minimize false positives and unnecessary treatments. The predicate device would have established a benchmark. | 98.07% (95% CI: 96.9-98.9) for "HCII CT-ID Test versus CT Culture/DF/" cohort
98.29% (95% CI: 96.5-99.3) for "CT/GC Positive/Culture Negative" cohort
97.88% (95% CI: 95.1-99.3) for "Mixed Symptomatic/Asymptomatic" cohort
99.47% (95% CI: 97.1-100) for "Asymptomatic Patients, Dacron Swab Only" cohort |
| NPV (Negative Predictive Value) | High NPV is critical to confidently rule out infection. | 99.63% (95% CI: 98.9-99.9) for "HCII CT-ID Test versus CT Culture/DF/" cohort
100% (95% CI: 99.1-100) for "CT/GC Positive/Culture Negative" cohort
98.30% (95% CI: 95.7-99.5) for "Mixed Symptomatic/Asymptomatic" cohort
100.00% (95% CI: 98.0-100) for "Asymptomatic Patients, Dacron Swab Only" cohort |
| PPV (Positive Predictive Value) | High PPV indicates that a positive result is likely a true positive. | 86.89% (95% CI: 79.6-92.3) for "HCII CT-ID Test versus CT Culture/DF/" cohort
75.86% (95% CI: 56.5-89.7) for "CT/GC Positive/Culture Negative" cohort
80.77% (95% CI: 60.7-93.5) for "Mixed Symptomatic/Asymptomatic" cohort
75.00% (95% CI: 19.4-99.4) for "Asymptomatic Patients, Dacron Swab Only" cohort |

The statement, "A multicenter study has demonstrated that the Digene HCII CT-ID Test performs as well or better than the gold standard, cell culture, in detecting infection with C. trachomatis in the intended population," suggests that the reported performance meets or exceeds the expected standards for a diagnostic device for C. trachomatis.

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

• Sample Size for the Test Set:

  • Total (HCII CT-ID Test vs. CT Culture/DFA): 940 specimens (aggregated from UAB: 351, JHU: 192, SUNY: 220, UCSF: 177).
  • Total (CT/GC Positive/Culture Negative): 431 specimens (aggregated from UAB: 101, JHU: 12, SUNY: 81, UCSF: 236, SJH: 1).
  • Total (Mixed Symptomatic/Asymptomatic): 261 specimens (aggregated from UAB: 7, JHU: 94, SUNY: 8, SJH: 152).
  • Total (Asymptomatic Patients, Dacron Swab Only): 190 specimens (aggregated from UAB: 1, JHU: 10, SUNY: 2, UCSF: 1, SJH: 176).

• Data Provenance: The study was a "multicenter study," indicating data collected from multiple clinical sites (UAB, JHU, SUNY, UCSF, SJH). The specific country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the institution names (e.g., UAB, JHU, SUNY, UCSF) strongly suggest United States. The study appears to be prospective or a collection of clinical samples, as it evaluates the diagnostic performance of the new test against a reference method on specimens. The text does not explicitly state "retrospective" or "prospective" but the context of a new device validation implies prospective data collection for clinical performance.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number or specific qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth. However, the ground truth method relies on:

• Cell Culture: This is a laboratory-based method.
• DFA (Direct Fluorescent Antibody): This is a microscopy-based method that typically involves trained microbiologists or laboratory personnel to interpret results.
• PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction): Used for "discordant analysis" or further testing in specific cases. PCR also requires skilled laboratory personnel.

While "experts" in the sense of physicians or radiologists making clinical diagnoses are not explicitly mentioned for establishing the ground truth, the "gold standard" methods (cell culture and DFA) implicitly rely on highly trained and qualified laboratory professionals to perform and interpret the tests accurately.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a formal "adjudication method" in the sense of multiple human readers independently reviewing cases and then coming to a consensus (e.g., 2+1 or 3+1).

Instead, the ground truth was established by a composite reference standard: Cell Culture/DFA. For cases where the HCII CT-ID test result was discordant with the Cell Culture/DFA result, PCR was often used for further investigation. For example, the notes mention "CT-ID+/Cul-/DFA- Tested Positive by PCR" with specific counts, indicating that PCR was used to resolve discrepancies and refine the understanding of true positives/negatives in challenging cases. This implies a form of discrepancy resolution rather than a multi-reader adjudication per se.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not done. This study is evaluating a standalone diagnostic test (the Digene HCII CT-ID Test), not an AI-assisted interpretation tool for human readers.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire study described evaluates the performance of the Digene HCII CT-ID Test itself (an in-vitro diagnostic device/assay), without human-in-the-loop interpretation once the assay is run and the RLU values are generated. The interpretation of RLU values into positive/negative/equivocal is based on a defined algorithm and cutoff values. The reported sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV are for the device operating in this standalone manner.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used was a composite reference standard consisting of:

• Cell Culture: Considered the "gold standard" for Chlamydia trachomatis detection at the time.
• DFA (Direct Fluorescent Antibody): Used in conjunction with cell culture, likely as a confirmatory test if cell culture was inconclusive or for direct detection from samples.
• PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction): Used for further investigation and discrepancy resolution, particularly for specimens where the HCII CT-ID test gave a positive result but the Cell Culture/DFA was negative (e.g., "CT-ID+/Cul-/DFA- Tested Positive by PCR"). This suggests that PCR served as a higher-level reference in ambiguous cases.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify the sample size for a training set. This is a clinical validation study for a medical device (an in-vitro diagnostic kit). The reported data appears to be from a validation or test set. For such IVD assays, development often involves extensive internal testing and optimization (which could be considered a form of "training" or assay development phase), but this document focuses on the final clinical performance validation.

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

Since a distinct "training set" with established ground truth is not mentioned in the provided text, this question cannot be answered from the available information. The document focuses on the performance of the developed assay against a reference standard in a clinical test set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Digene Hybrid Capture® CMV DNA Assay is a qualitative, in vitro, diagnostic assay intended for the detection of human cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA in human peripheral white blood cells isolated from whole blood specimens collected in EDTA. It is indicated for use as an aid in diagnosing CMV infection in solid organ transplant, bone marrow transplant and HIV/AIDS patients. This assay has not been cleared by the FDA for blood/plasma donor screening.

The Hybrid Capture® CMV DNA Assay is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic assay. It is a nucleic acid, signal enhanced, solution hybridization, antibody capture assay that uses chemiluminescent signaling to detect CMV DNA. The assay kit consists of 13 reagents and two accessories.

Whole blood specimens are treated with an agent that lyses red blood cells, and the specimen is centrifuged, resulting in a pellet of white blood cells. The white blood cell pellet is then used in the Hybrid Capture CMV DNA Assay.

Specimens potentially containing CMV DNA are denatured and then hybridized with a specific CMV RNA probe cocktail. This cocktail contains a probe mixture chosen to eliminate cross-reactivity with human or other herpesvirus sequences. The CMV probe supplied with the Hybrid Capture CMV DNA Assay is complementary to approximately 40,000 base pairs or 17% of the CMV genome (230,000 base pairs).

The RNA:DNA hybrids resulting from hybridization are captured on the surface of a tube coated with affinity-purified polyclonal caprine antibodies specific for RNA:DNA hybrids. The immobilized hybrids are then reacted with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated, murine monoclonal antibody to RNA:DNA hybrids, and are detected with a chemiluminescent substrate. Several alkaline phosphatase molecules are conjugated to each antibody. Multiple conjugated antibodies bind to each captured hybrid, resulting in signal enhancement. As the substrate is cleaved by the bound alkaline phosphatase, light is emitted and is measured in Relative Light Units (RLUs) on a standard commercial luminometer. The RLU value of a specimen is compared to a Positive Cutoff Value and to an Equivocal Cutoff Value to determine if the specimen is positive, equivocal, or negative for the presence of CMV DNA.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the Digene Hybrid Capture® System CMV DNA Assay, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy derived from a pre-defined threshold. Instead, it describes analytical sensitivity and clinical performance relative to predicate devices and established methods.

The key performance metrics and their reported values are:

Study Details

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

   • Clinical Testing: The summary mentions "clinical testing in HIV/AIDS patients and patients who had undergone a solid-organ or bone marrow transplants" and "parallel testing of specimens from solid organ transplant, bone marrow transplant and HIV/AIDS patients." It also states testing in "a population comprised of approximately equal numbers of CMV seropositive and seronegative individuals."
   • Sample Size: The exact number of patients or specimens in these clinical test sets is not specified in the provided document.
   • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The studies appear to be prospective clinical studies, as indicated by "clinical testing" and "parallel testing of specimens."

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

   • The document implies that the ground truth for clinical performance was established by comparing the device's results to "shell vial culture and cell culture" and "expected results based on a combination of the cell culture result, the shell vial culture result, and clinical information."
   • It does not specify the number of individual experts (e.g., clinicians, microbiologists) involved in establishing the "clinical information" component of the ground truth or their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience). The reference methods (cell culture, shell vial culture) are laboratory-based and generally performed by trained laboratory personnel.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The primary adjudication method for clinical performance appears to be a composite reference standard: "expected results based on a combination of the cell culture result, the shell vial culture result, and clinical information."
   • The specific method of combining these different results (e.g., how conflicts were resolved, if a 2+1 or 3+1 rule was used) is not detailed in the summary.

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:

   • This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for detecting CMV DNA, not an imaging device or an AI-assisted diagnostic system where "human readers" would be involved in interpreting images or other complex data. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human reader improvement with AI assistance is not applicable and was not performed. The assay generates a quantitative RLU value that is compared to predefined cutoffs.

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

   • Yes, this is a standalone assay. The entire evaluation described is of the assay itself (Hybrid Capture® System CMV DNA Assay) without human interpretation steps that would be "in-the-loop." The luminometer measures RLU values, and the comparison to cutoff values for positive, equivocal, or negative results is algorithm-driven (or rule-based), not requiring human reader judgment for the final diagnostic outcome from the assay itself.

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

   • For analytical performance, the ground truth was derived from known dilutions of plasmid CMV DNA.
   • For clinical performance, the ground truth was a composite reference standard using traditional laboratory methods (shell vial culture, cell culture) combined with "clinical information." This clinical information could encompass patient symptoms, serology, treatment response, and other relevant medical data, potentially involving physician adjudication or consensus, though specific details are not provided.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly refer to a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This is a traditional IVD assay. The development of the assay (e.g., defining the probe cocktail, optimizing reaction conditions, establishing cutoff values) would involve empirical studies and iterative testing/optimization, but these are not typically referred to as "training sets" in the same way as in AI/ML validation studies. The analytical sensitivity studies on known concentrations of CMV DNA would contribute to establishing cutoff values but aren't described as a "training set."

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

   • As there is no explicitly defined "training set" in the AI/ML sense, this question is not directly applicable. The establishment of assay parameters (like cutoff values for positive/equivocal results) would be based on studies using known CMV DNA concentrations (as mentioned for analytical sensitivity) and potentially retrospective clinical samples alongside the predicate methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Digene DML 2000 Microplate Luminometer is intended to measure light that is emitted as a result of a chemiluminescent reaction. Assay results obtained using chemiluminescence technology in 96 well microplates are calculated and interpreted according to assay validation parameters.

The DML 2000 is a microplate luminometer capable of reading chemiluminescence from opaque microplates. Chemiluminescence is the production of light from a chemical reaction. The luminometer is optimally designed for measurement of glow type luminescence. The luminometer is designed to be run and controlled by a personal computer connected via a serial RS-232 interface port. The instrument is simple in design with measurement taking place in 96-well microplates, where each well is presented to the detector by stepper motors moving the plate. The light is detected by a photomultiplier tube. The light is amplified and converted to an electrical signal which is detected by a sensitive electrical amplifier. The detected signals are converted to Relative Light Units (RLU) and are reported for each well of the microplate. Assay results are calculated and interpreted according to assay validation parameters.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Digene DML 2000 Microplate Luminometer. It outlines the device's description, intended use, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, the document does not contain information related to acceptance criteria, specific performance studies, sample sizes, expert involvement, or ground truth establishment relevant for an AI/ML medical device.

The device described is a microplate luminometer, a laboratory instrument designed to measure light produced by chemiluminescent reactions. It is not an AI/ML-based device that would typically have acceptance criteria related to algorithmic performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, nor "studies" in the context of evaluating an AI model.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table and details because the provided document does not contain this type of information. The 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a physical laboratory instrument, not the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Digene Cervical Brush is intended for the collection of cervical cells for Pap smear analysis and/or for sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing.

The Digene Cervical Brush has a truncated cone-shaped brush head composed of bristles joined to a wire shaft; the brush head on the wire shaft is bonded to a plastic handle. The distal end of the wire shaft is embedded in solidified glue. To collect cervical cells, the brush end of the Digene Cervical Brush is inserted 1.0 to 1.5 cm into the cervical os until the longest outer bristles of the brush touch the ectocervix. The brush is rotated three full turns in a counter-clockwise direction and withdrawn. The brush is then used to spread the specimen onto a glass slide for a Pap smear or is inserted into a transport tube for use in STD testing.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the "Digene Cervical Brush," a specimen collection device. It focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Medscand Cytobrush, rather than demonstrating meeting specific performance criteria through a study with defined acceptance criteria for the device itself.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, study design, and performance metrics are not available in the provided document, as it's a submission for a collection device, not a diagnostic device with performance claims.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what information is missing:

Information NOT available in the provided text:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document does not describe performance criteria, sensitivity, specificity, or other typical metrics associated with diagnostic devices. It focuses on equivalence for a collection tool.
• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: No test set is described.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: No ground truth establishment for a test set is discussed.
• Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: No test set or adjudication is mentioned.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No MRMC study is mentioned.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: This device is a physical collection brush, not an algorithm.
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable for this type of submission.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an algorithm being trained.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

What is available: The Basis for Substantial Equivalence

The submission argues for substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Medscand Cytobrush (K832986), based on the following characteristics:

• Intended Use: Both are for the collection of cervical cells for Pap smear analysis and/or for sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing.
• Design: Both have a truncated cone-shaped brush head composed of bristles joined to a wire shaft, with the brush head bonded to a plastic handle.
• Materials: Implied to be similar based on the equivalence claim.
• Manufacturing Processes: Implied to be similar based on the equivalence claim.
• Physical Properties: Implied to be similar based on the equivalence claim.
• Principles of Operation: Both collect cervical cells by insertion into the cervical os, rotation, and withdrawal.

In summary, the "acceptance criteria" for the Digene Cervical Brush were effectively that it demonstrated "substantial equivalence" to the legally marketed Medscand Cytobrush, meaning it raised no new questions of safety or effectiveness, as confirmed by the FDA's decision letter (K971586). The study proving this was a comparison of its characteristics to the predicate device, rather than a clinical performance study with specific endpoints.

Ask a specific question about this device