Search Results

The gliadin antibodies enzyme immunoassay system is used for the detection and semiquantitative measurement of (IgG and IgA) antibodies to wheat gliadin in human serum. The test results obtained with the test kit are used as an aid in the diagnosis of gluten sensitive enteropathies such as celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis in children and adult patients.

Not Found

This appears to be a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for an in vitro diagnostic device, specifically the "Gliadin Antibodies ELISA Test System." This type of device is usually cleared based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than through extensive clinical trials with pre-defined acceptance criteria and efficacy studies as might be seen for a new therapeutic drug or an AI-powered diagnostic imaging tool.

Therefore, many of the requested elements (like sample size for test sets, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance studies, and training set details) are not typically applicable or provided in the context of a 510(k) clearance for an ELISA test system.

However, I can extract information related to its intended use and the general "performance" the FDA is looking for in such a device.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the provided text, acknowledging the limitations for this type of device:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for the Gliadin Antibodies ELISA Test System (K973910)

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter, the "acceptance criteria" for this device are primarily related to its substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed predicate devices for the same intended use. The "study" that proves this is typically a method comparison study and performance verification demonstrating that the device performs comparably to the predicate device and meets its stated analytical specifications. The document itself does not detail the specific performance metrics or the study design, as that information would be in the original 510(k) submission.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided FDA clearance letter. For an ELISA kit, this would typically involve a set of known positive and negative serum samples (often hundreds) compared against a predicate method.
• Data Provenance: Not specified in the provided FDA clearance letter. Such studies often involve serum samples from patients presenting with relevant symptoms (e.g., suspected celiac disease) and healthy controls, potentially collected retrospectively or prospectively.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified. For in vitro diagnostic assays like this, "ground truth" is typically established by:
  • Diagnosis based on established clinical criteria (e.g., biopsy results for celiac disease, clinical symptoms, and response to treatment).
  • Results from a gold-standard reference method or highly characterized predicate assay.
• Qualifications: Not specified. The "experts" would be clinicians diagnosing gluten-sensitive enteropathies or laboratory professionals performing reference assays.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable or specified. For an ELISA kit, the "truth" of a sample (positive/negative for the condition, or concentration of antibody) is based on clinical diagnosis, pathology, or reference assay results, not typically on expert consensus for image interpretation.

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

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC study is not applicable for an ELISA test system. MRMC studies are typically used for imaging diagnostics where human readers interpret medical images, often with and without AI assistance, to assess the impact of AI on diagnostic performance. This device is an in vitro diagnostic kit; there are no "readers" in the context of image interpretation.

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

• Standalone Performance: For an ELISA kit, the "standalone performance" refers to the analytical performance of the test kit itself (e.g., its sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy compared to a reference method). This performance is evaluated as part of the 510(k) submission. However, this is not a "standalone algorithm" in the typical sense of AI/image analysis. The letter does not detail these specific analytical results but confirms they were found to be substantially equivalent.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: Most likely established through a combination of:
  • Clinical Diagnosis: Based on established criteria for gluten-sensitive enteropathies (e.g., small intestinal biopsy for celiac disease, clinical symptoms, response to gluten-free diet).
  • Reference Assay Results: Comparison with a previously cleared or gold-standard gliadin antibody assay.
  • Pathology: For celiac disease, definitive diagnosis often relies on duodenal biopsy findings.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. ELISA kits do not "train" on data in the same way an AI algorithm does. Their performance is inherent to the chemical and biological components of the assay. Development involves optimizing reagents and conditions to achieve desired performance characteristics, but there isn't a "training set" in the machine learning sense.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable. See point 8. The "ground truth" for developing and optimizing such a kit would involve well-characterized clinical samples (positive and negative for antibodies/disease) to ensure the reagents perform as intended, but it's not a "training set" with ground truth labels for an algorithm.

Summary: The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) ELISA kit. The acceptance criteria and supporting "study" are focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This involves rigorous analytical performance testing and method comparisons, rather than the types of clinical efficacy studies or AI performance metrics requested in the prompt, which are more relevant to AI/imaging device clearances. Therefore, many of the specific details requested are not typically found in such a clearance letter for an ELISA system.

Ask a specific question about this device