Search Results

The OSOM Influenza A&B Test is an in vitro diagnostic immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection of influenza A and influenza B viral nucleoprotein antigens from nasal swab specimens in symptomatic patients. It is intended to aid in the rapid differential diagnosis of influenza A and/or B viral infections. This test is not intended for the detection of influenza C viruses. A negative test is presumptive and it is recommended these results be confirmed by cell culture. Negative results do not preclude influenza virus infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other management decisions.

The OSOM Influenza A&B Test consists of a test stick that separately detects influenza A and B. The test procedure requires the solubilization of the nucleoproteins from a swab by mixing the swab in Extraction Buffer. The test stick is then placed in the sample mixture, which then migrates along the membrane surface. If influenza A and/or B viral antigens are present in the sample, it will form a complex with mouse monoclonal IgG antibodies to influenza A and/or B nucleoproteins conjugated to colloidal gold. The complex will then be bound by another mouse anti-influenza A and/or B antibody coated on the nitrocellulose membrane. A pink to purple control line must appear in the control region of the stick for results to be valid. The appearance of a second and possibly a third light pink to purple line will appear in the test line region indicating an A, B or A and B positive result.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the OSOM® Influenza A&B Test. It describes the device, its intended use, and compares it to a legally marketed predicate device (OSOM Influenza A&B Test K051244). The information provided focuses on the device's characteristics and its equivalence to the predicate, rather than a detailed study proving it meets specific acceptance criteria with performance metrics.

Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported performance, and study details (sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, MRMC studies) is not present in the provided text. The document is primarily a regulatory submission for substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of what can be extracted from the provided text based on your request:

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

The provided text does not include explicit acceptance criteria or detailed reported device performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) from a clinical study. It focuses on comparing the new device's technological characteristics to a predicate device. The cross-reactivity data table shows potential interfering substances that were tested and found to have "no affect on the performance," but it doesn't quantify performance metrics.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The text describes the device and its intended use but does not detail any clinical study or the sample size used for a test set, nor the provenance of such data.

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. There is no mention of a test set, ground truth establishment, or experts involved in such a process.

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

This information is not provided in the document. There is no mention of a test set or any adjudication method.

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

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study is not mentioned. This device is an in vitro diagnostic immunochromatographic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, so the concept of human readers improving with AI assistance is not applicable.

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

This device is a lateral flow immunoassay. Its performance is inherent to the chemical reaction and visual interpretation of the test stick, not an algorithm. Therefore, the concept of "standalone (algorithm only)" performance is not applicable. The test provides a direct result (pink to purple line) that is interpreted by the user.

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

The document states under "Intended Use": "A negative test is presumptive and it is recommended these results be confirmed by cell culture." This implies that cell culture is considered the gold standard or ground truth for confirming negative results of influenza infection. However, it does not explicitly state what was used as ground truth for any performance evaluation in this 510(k) submission.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the document. As a lateral flow immunoassay, there wouldn't typically be a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device's formulation and antibodies are developed through a different process.

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

This information is not provided and is again not applicable in the context of this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OSOM Influenza A&B Test is an in vitro diagnostic immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection of influenza A and influenza B viral nucleoprotein antigens from nasal swab specimens in symptomatic patients. It is intended to aid in the rapid differential diagnosis of influenza A and/or B viral infections. This test is not intended for the detection of influenza C viruses. A negative test is presumptive and it is recommended these results be confirmed by cell culture.

Cross-reactivity with respiratory viruses other than influenza viruses has not been evaluated. The user is responsible for determining the cross-reactivity of other respiratory viruses with this test.

The OSOM Influenza A&B Test consists of a test stick that separately detects influenza A and B. The test procedure requires the solubilization of the nucleoproteins from a swab by mixing the swab in Extraction Buffer. The test stick is then placed in the sample mixture, which then migrates along the membrane surface. If influenza A and/or B viral antigens are present in the sample, it will form a complex with mouse monoclonal IgG antibodies to influenza A and/or B nucleoproteins conjugated to colloidal gold. The complex will then be bound by another mouse anti-influenza A and/or B antibody coated on the nitrocellulose membrane. A pink to purple control line must appear in the control region of the stick for results to be valid. The appearance of a second and possibly a third light pink to purple line will appear in the test line region indicating an A, B or A and B positive result.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study that proves the OSOM Influenza A&B Test meets them, based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of numerical thresholds for sensitivity, specificity, and agreement. However, the study results are presented as the device's performance. For the purpose of this response, I will interpret the reported performance values as implicitly meeting the unstated acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence to the predicate device.

Additional Performance Data:

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

• Sample Size for Clinical Performance (Test Set): 383 subjects.
  • 383 total samples for comparison to viral culture for both Influenza A and B.
  • Of these, 132 samples were from pediatric subjects (2-19 years) and 251 samples were from adults (> 20 years).
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or whether the study was retrospective or prospective. Given the context of a 510(k) submission to the FDA in the US, it is highly likely that the clinical study was conducted in the United States. The study involved enrollment of subjects, which suggests a prospective collection of samples for the clinical performance evaluation.

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)

• The ground truth for the clinical performance study (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) was established using viral cell culture as the reference method. This is a laboratory-based method, not dependent on human expert interpretation of the final result for the ground truth. Therefore, the concept of "number of experts" and their "qualifications" for establishing the ground truth does not directly apply here in the traditional sense of image or clinical interpretation.

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

• The document does not describe any human adjudication method for the ground truth (viral culture) or for the device's results. Viral culture results are objective laboratory findings. For the OSOM test results, it is a rapid diagnostic test with visually interpreted lines, implying a single interpretation per test, though reproducibility was assessed across different operators.
• Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) was performed on specimens that gave inconsistent results between the OSOM test and viral culture. This was done "for information only" and PCR was not FDA approved/cleared for this purpose at the time, meaning it was not used as a primary adjudication method for the final, reported clinical performance metrics directly, but rather for investigational purposes.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic immunochromatographic assay (a rapid point-of-care test), not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging or interpretation system. It does not involve human readers interpreting complex images with or without AI assistance, so the concept of "effect size of how much human readers improve with AI" is not applicable.
• However, an Assay Reproducibility study was conducted to demonstrate that the test performs acceptably in the hands of various operators (nurses, nurse practitioners, physician's office personnel). This involved multiple operators interpreting coded and masked samples, which is a form of multi-reader evaluation for the device's interpretability. The overall accuracy was 97% for Flu A and 94% for Flu B in this reproducibility study.

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

• Yes, in essence, the primary clinical performance evaluation is a standalone study. The OSOM Influenza A&B Test is a lateral flow immunoassay that provides a visual reading (pink to purple lines). Although a human interprets these lines, the core "algorithm" (the immunochromatographic assay itself) operates independently. The sensitivity, specificity, and agreement reported in the "Agreement with Viral Culture" section represent the performance of the device on its own, with human interpretation assumed to be done according to instructions. The test is designed to be read directly by an operator, not to be an "AI algorithm" that outputs a result for a human to then validate or integrate into a diagnosis.

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

• The primary ground truth for the clinical performance (sensitivity, specificity) was viral cell culture. This is considered a gold standard for influenza virus detection.
• For the analytical specificity and cross-reactivity studies, the ground truth was the known identity of the bacterial isolates and influenza virus strains.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The document describes the clinical performance evaluation and various analytical studies. It does not describe a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI models, as this is an immunoassay. The tests performed are validations of the developed assay, not training phases for an algorithm.

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

• As concluded in point 8, there isn't a "training set" for an AI model mentioned in the document. The development of an immunoassay like the OSOM test involves extensive laboratory work, including using known positive and negative samples, and samples spiked with varying concentrations of analytes, to optimize the assay's components and parameters (antibodies, reagents, flow characteristics, etc.). This iterative process would utilize known viral cultures and other characterized samples to ensure the assay functions as intended, but it's not typically referred to as a "training set" with ground truth in the same way as in AI/ML development.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reagents: For the quantitative measurement of C-Reactive Protein (CRP) concentration in serum or plasma. For In Vitro Diagnostic Use. Calibrator: For the calibration of the N-geneousTM Wide Range CRP assay. For In Vitro Diagnostic Use.

The Genzyme N-geneous™ Wide Range CRP Reagent is a two-reagent method for the quantitative measurement of CRP concentration from 0.04 to 320 mg/L in serum or plasma. The test is an enhanced latex-agglutination turbidimetric immunoassay. Sample is added to a buffer solution and mixed with a suspension of mouse anti-human CRP monoclonal antibody, which is bound to latex. CRP binds to the latex-bound antibody, which agglutinates. The light scattering caused by the increase in particle size is used as a measure of CRP concentration. The amount of light scattering is proportional to the concentration of CRP in the sample. N-geneous™ Wide Range CRP Calibrator Set is a stabilized human serum designed to be used to calibrate the N-geneous™ Wide Range CRP Reagent and is sold separately.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the N-geneous™ Wide Range CRP Reagent Kit, structured to answer your questions:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for N-geneous™ Wide Range CRP Reagent Kit

The 510(k) submission for the N-geneous™ Wide Range CRP Reagent Kit demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Dade Behring N High Sensitive CRP method, primarily through comparative performance and precision studies.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for the comparative performance and precision studies in terms of pre-defined thresholds. Instead, it presents the results of these studies and concludes that the device's performance is "substantially equivalent" or "acceptable."

However, we can infer the implicit performance targets based on the evaluation presented. For devices seeking substantial equivalence, a high correlation with a legally marketed predicate device and acceptable precision (low variability) are key.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set (Comparative Performance): 229 serum samples.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It describes "comparative performance studies" and "precision studies" conducted on the Hitachi 912 clinical analyzer. Given Genzyme Diagnostics is located in Cambridge, MA, it's reasonable to infer the studies were likely conducted in the US, but this is not explicitly stated. The studies used "serum samples" and "sera that were stored frozen (-20°C) and thawed prior to use." This indicates the data is retrospective in the sense that the samples were collected prior to the full study, but they are prospectively analyzed in the context of this study.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• This document describes a diagnostic device (reagent and calibrator) for quantitative measurement of CRP. The "ground truth" for the comparative performance study is the measurement obtained from the predicate device, the Dade Behring N High Sensitive CRP method.
• No human experts were used to establish ground truth in the sense of a subjective interpretation or diagnosis. The ground truth is established by the measurement value from the predicate device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Since the "ground truth" is derived from the quantitative measurement of a predicate device, there was no adjudication method involving human experts for the test set.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for image-based diagnostic devices or tests where human interpretation is involved (e.g., radiology, pathology). This submission is for an in vitro diagnostic reagent and calibrator kit, where the output is a quantitative measure of CRP.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The precision studies (within-run and total precision) directly assess the performance of the N-geneous™ Wide Range CRP Reagent Kit in isolation, without direct comparison to human interpretation or a human-in-the-loop scenario. The comparative performance study also evaluates the algorithm's (reagent's) output against the predicate device's output, essentially a standalone comparison to another device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth used for the comparative performance study was the quantitative measurement value obtained from the legally marketed predicate device (Dade Behring N High Sensitive CRP method).
• For the precision studies, the "ground truth" is inherent to the intrinsic variability of the device itself when measuring known concentrations, and the results are reported as mean, standard deviation, and %CV.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size. This is common for in vitro diagnostic device submissions where the 'algorithm' is essentially the chemical reaction and light scattering measurement, and the parameters (e.g., reagent concentrations) are established during product development, not typically through a distinct machine learning "training phase" on a separate dataset in the same way an AI/ML diagnostic would. The comparative and precision studies are validation studies, not training studies.

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

• As no explicit training set is described for an AI/ML algorithm, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set in this context is not applicable. The underlying chemical and physical principles of the immunoassay, along with established laboratory practices and quality control, govern the development and calibration of such a device. The calibrator itself is traceable to CRM470, which serves as a widely accepted "ground truth" or reference material for CRP measurements.

Ask a specific question about this device

Sepramesh™ IP Bioresorbable Coating - Permanent Mesh is indicated for use in the reconstruction of soft tissue deficiencies, such as for the repair of hernias.

Sepramesh™ IP Bioresorbable Coating - Permanent Mosh (Sepramesh™ IP) is a dualcomponent (absorbable and non-absorbable), sterile prosthesis designed for the reconstruction of soft tissue deficiencies. Sepramesh™ IP is co-knitted using polypropylene and polyglycolic acid (PGA) fibers to result in a two-sided mesh with a polypropylene surface and PGA surface. The mesh is coated on the PGA surface with a bioresorbable, chemically modified sodium hyaluronate (HA), carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and a polyethylene glycol (PEG) based hydrogel.

The fascial side of the mesh allows a prompt fibroblastic response through the interstices of the mesh, encouraging tissue ingrowth, similar to polypropylene mesh alone. The visceral side of the mesh provides a hydrophilic bioresorbable layer, separating the mesh from underlying tissue and organ surfaces during the critical wound-healing period resulting in minimal tissue attachment and visceral adhesions to the mesh. Shortly after placement, the biopolymer coating becomes a hydrated gel that is resorbed from the site in less than 30 days. The absorption of the PGA fibers is essentially complete between 50 and 80 days. The polypropylene mesh is permanent and allows for tissue ingrowth.

The provided submission describes a medical device, Sepramesh™ IP Bioresorbable Coating - Permanent Mesh, seeking 510(k) clearance. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices rather than proving specific performance against an acceptance criterion in a clinical study. Therefore, the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance in the context of an AI/human-in-the-loop study is not applicable.

Here's a breakdown of why this information isn't present in this specific document:

• Device Type: Sepramesh™ IP is a surgical mesh for soft tissue repair, not an AI or diagnostic imaging device. Its clearance pathway is based on material properties, design, and intended use comparison to existing devices.
• 510(k) Clearance: The 510(k) process is about demonstrating "substantial equivalence," meaning that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed device. It typically relies on comparisons of technological characteristics, materials, and intended use, often supported by bench testing and sometimes animal studies, rather than large-scale clinical trials with specific performance endpoints like those seen in AI device submissions.

Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI performance, human reader studies, and large-scale test datasets do not apply to this specific 510(k) submission.

Here is the information that can be extracted from the provided text, recognizing the nature of a 510(k) for a surgical mesh:

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

This document does not present a table of specific acceptance criteria in the way one might see for an AI device (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" for a 510(k) of this nature involve demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on:

• Materials: Comparison of polypropylene, PGA, HA, CMC, PEG.
• Design: Dual-component mesh with two sides (fibroblastic response side and bioresorbable separation layer).
• Intended Use: Reconstruction of soft tissue deficiencies, such as hernia repair.
• Performance (General): Bioresorption profile of coating and PGA fibers, permanent nature of polypropylene mesh, tissue ingrowth, minimal tissue attachment/adhesions.

The document states: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices..." This statement from the FDA serves as the "reported device performance" in the context of the 510(k) process – that it meets the "acceptance criteria" of being substantially equivalent.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is not an AI device or a diagnostic device; therefore, there isn't a "test set" in the sense of patient data for performance evaluation. The substantial equivalence is based on component comparison and intended use.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable for the reasons stated above.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for the reasons stated above.

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. Sepramesh™ IP is a surgical implant, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithmic device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this 510(k) submission is the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate devices and the demonstration that the new device shares similar technological characteristics and performs similarly.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The OSOM® Trichomonas Rapid Test is intended for the qualitative detection of Trichomonas vaginalis ("Trichomonas") antigens from vaginal swabs and from the saline solution prepared when making wet mounts from vaginal swabs. This test is intended for use in patients with symptoms of vaginosis/vaginitis or suspected exposure to the Trichomonas pathogen. This device is intended for use in physicians' offices as well as clinical laboratories.

The OSOM Trichomonas Rapid Test uses color immunochromatographic, capillary flow, "dipstick" technology with antibodies coated on a nitrocellulose membrane. The test procedure requires the solubilization of Trichomonas proteins from a vaginal swab by placing it in a Sample Buffer. The OSOM Trichomonas Rapid Test is then placed in the Sample Buffer, and the mixture migrates along the membrane surface. If Trichomonas is present in the sample, it will form a complex with the primary anti-Trichomonas antibody conjugated to colored particles (blue). The complex will then be bound by the second anti-Trichomonas capture antibody. The appearance of a visible blue test line together with the red control line indicates a positive result.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the acceptance criteria and study details for the OSOM® Trichomonas Rapid Test:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for OSOM® Trichomonas Rapid Test

The provided document describes the performance of the OSOM® Trichomonas Rapid Test against a composite reference standard (CRS) that includes wet mount microscopy and culture. The acceptance criteria themselves are not explicitly stated as distinct numerical targets required for approval, but rather the observed performance metrics are presented. For the purpose of this response, I will interpret the reported agreement, sensitivity, and specificity as the metrics against which the device's performance was judged.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document does not specify explicit numerical "acceptance criteria" that were pre-defined. The "acceptance criteria (implied)" column reflects the general expectation for diagnostic assays to demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for their intended use.

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): 437 samples (102 positive, 335 negative based on composite reference standard).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The document does not mention the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified. The ground truth was established using an objective composite reference standard (wet mount microscopy and culture), not solely based on expert interpretation. While these diagnostic methods are performed by trained personnel, the document doesn't detail the number of individuals involved or their specific qualifications for this study.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: A composite reference standard (CRS) was used. This means that a sample was classified as positive if it tested positive by either wet mount microscopy or culture. Conversely, a sample was classified as negative only if it tested negative by both wet mount microscopy and culture. This method effectively adjudicates discrepancies by prioritizing positive findings from either established method as indicative of true positivity.

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

• MRMC Study Done: No. The study described is a standalone performance evaluation of the OSOM® Trichomonas Rapid Test against a reference standard. There is no mention of human readers or comparing their performance with and without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Standalone Performance Study Done: Yes. The reported performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, and agreement) are for the OSOM® Trichomonas Rapid Test itself, without human-in-the-loop interaction for interpretation beyond the initial sample preparation and visual reading of the test line.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: Composite Reference Standard (CRS). This standard combined the results of:
  • Wet mount microscopy
  • InPouch TV™ culture (BioMed Diagnostics Inc.)
    A sample was considered positive if either wet mount or culture was positive, and negative if both were negative.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size (Training Set): Not applicable. This device is a rapid immunochromatographic test, not an AI/machine learning algorithm requiring a separate training set. Its performance is based on its inherent biochemical and immunological properties.

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

• How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established: Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Contrast® II hCG Urine/Serum Test system is intended for the qualitative detection of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a placental hormone, in urine or serum for the early detection of pregnancy. The test is intended for use by health care professionals.

The Genzyme Diagnostics Contrast® II hCG Urine/Serum test is a rapid immunoassay for the qualitative detection of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in urine or serum for the early detection of pregnancy. This test is for use in physicians' offices and clinical laboratories. The Contrast® II Urine/Serum device is a solid phase, sandwich-format immunochromatographic assay for the qualitative detection of hCG. Urine or serum is added to the sample well of the test device using the fixed volume AccuPipette® provided. The sample migrates through reaction pads where hCG. if present in the sample, binds to a monoclonal anti-hCG dye conjugate. The sample then migrates across a membrane towards the results window, where the labeled monoclonal antibody-hCG complex is captured at a test line region containing immobilized monoclonal anti-α hCG. Excess conjugate will flow past the test line region and be captured at a control line region containing an immobilized antibody directed against the anti-hCG dye conjugate (with or without hCG complexed to it). The appearance of two gray or black bands in the results window indicates the presence of hCG in the sample. If a detectable level of the hCG is not present, only the control band will appear in the results window.

Here's an analysis of the Genzyme Contrast® II hCG Urine/Serum Test based on the provided text, focusing on the requested categories:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the Genzyme Contrast® II hCG Urine/Serum Test are implicitly tied to demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device, the Quidel QuickVue® One-Step hCG Combo Test, particularly in analytical sensitivity and overall agreement.

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • 201 urine samples
  • 319 serum samples
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or if the data was retrospective or prospective. It refers to "samples," which implies they were collected for the study, but the precise nature of the collection is not detailed.

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

The ground truth for the test set was not established by human experts in the traditional sense. The "ground truth" was determined by comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (Quidel QuickVue® One-Step hCG Combo Test) and, for discrepant samples, a quantitative reference assay (Diagnostics Products Coat-A-Count® hCG IRMA). Therefore, the concept of "number of experts" and their "qualifications" for establishing ground truth as typically applied to image-based diagnostics or clinical diagnoses is not directly applicable here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method involved:

• Initial comparison to the predicate device.
• For discrepant samples (where the Contrast® II and predicate results differed), a third, quantitative assay (Diagnostics Products Coat-A-Count® hCG IRMA) was used to resolve the discrepancy. This can be viewed as a form of third-party arbitration/resolution using a more definitive method.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) based on an immunoassay, not an imaging device or a diagnostic requiring human interpretation of complex visual data. Therefore, the concept of "human readers" and improved performance with or without AI assistance is not relevant to this type of device.

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

Yes, the performance study effectively represents a standalone performance of the Contrast® II hCG Urine/Serum Test. The device itself is designed to provide a direct visual result (bands) without requiring complex human interpretation or an AI algorithm. The study assesses the device's ability to accurately detect hCG in samples on its own, compared to other established methods.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the test set was established using a hierarchical approach:

• Predicate Device Comparison: Initial agreement was assessed against the Quidel QuickVue® One-Step hCG Combo Test.
• Quantitative Assay: For discrepant samples, the Diagnostics Products Coat-A-Count® hCG IRMA (a quantitative assay) served as the definitive ground truth, providing a more precise measurement of hCG levels.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a training set size. IVD devices like this typically undergo extensive R&D and optimization during development, often using numerous samples for analytical characterization and calibration. However, the 510(k) summary focuses on the clinical performance study (test set) for demonstrating substantial equivalence, not the internal development process that might involve a "training set."

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

Since a dedicated "training set" with ground truth establishment in the context of machine learning is not discussed, this question is not applicable to the provided information. The development of such an immunoassay relies on established biochemical principles and extensive internal validation, rather than a formal machine learning training paradigm with independently adjudicated ground truth for a "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device

Reagent: For the quantitative determination of high-density cholesterol lipoprotein cholesterol in human serum or plasma. Lipoprotein measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of lipid disorders (such as diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis and various liver and renal diseases). For In Vitro Diagnostic Use. Calibrator: For calibration of the Ultra HDL Cholesterol assay. For In Vitro Diagnostic Use.

The new Ultra N-geneous® HDL Cholesterol Kit is a two-reagent homogeneous method for the direct quantitative determination of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in human serum and plasma. The new Ultra N-geneous® HDL Cholesterol assay does not contain polyanion or divalent metal. "precipitation reagent". This new method is based on accelerating the reaction of cholesterol oxidase and dissolving HDL selectively using a specific detergent.

This document describes the validation of the Genzyme Ultra N-geneous® HDL Cholesterol Reagent and Calibrator. The device is a two-reagent homogeneous method for the direct quantitative determination of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in human serum and plasma. The validation aims to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to the current Liquid N-geneous® HDL Cholesterol Reagent method and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) designated comparison method.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the comparative performance results and the NCEP goals for precision. The reported device performance is presented in comparison to the predicate devices.

Comparative Performance (Ultra N-geneous® HDL vs. Predicates)

Precision Performance (Ultra N-geneous® HDL)

Physician Office Laboratory (POL) Performance (N-geneous™ HDL - Lyophilized format)

The study demonstrates that the Ultra N-geneous® HDL Cholesterol Reagent performs comparably to the predicate devices, with high correlation coefficients, low mean differences, and precision that meets NCEP goals.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set for Comparative Studies:
  • vs. current Liquid N-geneous® HDL: 101 serum samples.
  • vs. Designated Comparison Method: 52 serum samples.
• Test Set for POL studies: 40 serum samples for each of the three POL sites.
• Provenance: The samples were "human serum and plasma." The studies were conducted at Genzyme Corporation (Cambridge, MA) and Pacific BioMetrics (Seattle, WA) for the primary comparative studies. The POL studies were conducted at three different physician office laboratories. The data appears to be prospective in the sense that specific experiments were conducted to generate this data for the submission.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications (for Ground Truth)

• No "experts" in the traditional sense (e.g., radiologists interpreting images) were used for establishing ground truth.
• The ground truth for comparative studies was established by recognized reference methods:
  • The "current Liquid N-geneous® HDL Cholesterol Reagent method."
  • The "Center for Disease Control (CDC) designated comparison method (DCM)."
  • The HDL reference method (ultracentrifugation, chemical precipitation, and Abell-Kendall) for samples with triglyceride levels >400 mg/dL.
• The qualifications of the personnel performing these reference methods are not explicitly stated but are presumed to be standard for clinical laboratory professionals following established protocols.

4. Adjudication Method

• Not applicable. This study involves quantitative measurements against reference methods, not subjective interpretation requiring adjudication among experts.

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

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This is a comparison of an in-vitro diagnostic device's analytical performance against predicate methods, not a study involving human readers or interpretation of results for diagnostic decisions where AI assistance might be beneficial.

6. Standalone Performance

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The comparative performance studies (vs. Liquid N-geneous® HDL and vs. DCM), as well as the precision studies, assess the performance of the Ultra N-geneous® HDL Cholesterol Reagent as a standalone algorithm (or assay). The results reported (slope, intercept, correlation, mean difference, %CV, SD) are all measures of the device's inherent analytical performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth used was analytical reference methods:
  • The existing "Liquid N-geneous® HDL Cholesterol Reagent method."
  • The "Center for Disease Control (CDC) designated comparison method (DCM)."
  • For specific cases (triglycerides >400 mg/dL), the "HDL reference method (ultracentrifugation, chemical precipitation, and Abell-Kendall)" was used.
• These are established laboratory methods considered to provide accurate measurements of HDL cholesterol.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This document describes the validation of an in-vitro diagnostic reagent, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a "training set." The reagent's performance is based on chemical reactions and optical detection, not learned patterns from data.

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

• Not applicable. As stated above, there is no "training set" in the context of this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Polyester Surgical Sutures are indicated for use in general soft tissue approximation and/or ligation, including use in cardiovascular, ophthalmic orthopedic and neurological procedures.

Polyester Nonabsorbable Surgical Suture, USP size 9-0 through 9 available as undyed, dyed D & C Green No. 6 and as a co-braid of the undyed and dyed. The suture is sterile, braided and is provided in a variety of lengths, with or without pledgets, with or without needles and may be supplied in a variety of cut lengths or on ligating reels.

This submission is for a surgical suture and therefore the concept of AI/ML performance acceptance criteria and study design does not apply. The provided text describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, relying on established performance standards for surgical sutures rather than AI/ML-specific evaluations.

Here's why the AI/ML-focused questions are not applicable:

• Device Type: The device is a "Polyester Nonabsorbable Surgical Suture." This is a tangible medical device used for physically joining tissues, not a software algorithm, diagnostic imaging tool, or any other device that would typically involve AI/ML.
• Evaluation Basis: The determination of substantial equivalence is based on:
  • Detailed device description.
  • Performance testing (implied by conformance to standards).
  • Conformance with voluntary performance standards (e.g., ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1 Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, USP Section XXV - Nonabsorbable Surgical Sutures, and the Guidance Document "Guidance for Surgical Suture 510(k)s"). These are standards for the physical and biological properties of sutures, not for algorithmic performance.
• Lack of AI/ML Metrics: The document does not mention any metrics like sensitivity, specificity, AUC, F1-score, precision, recall, or any other terms typically associated with AI/ML model performance.
• No "Readers" or "Ground Truth" as defined for AI: The concepts of human "readers" interacting with an AI, "ground truth" derived from expert consensus for image interpretation, or "training sets" and "test sets" for machine learning are absent from the provided text.

Therefore, since this device does not involve AI/ML, I cannot provide details on:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to AI/ML.
2. Sample sizes for test sets or data provenance for AI/ML.
3. Number and qualifications of experts for AI/ML ground truth.
4. Adjudication method for AI/ML test sets.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study or human reader improvement with AI.
6. Standalone AI algorithm performance.
7. Type of ground truth used for AI/ML.
8. Sample size for AI/ML training set.
9. How ground truth for AI/ML training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

HylaSine is indicated for use in patients undergoing nasal/sinus surgery as a space-occupying gel stent to separate and prevent adhesions between mucosal surfaces in the nasal cavity, to help control minimal bleeding following surgery or nasal trauma, and to prevent lateralization of the middle turbinate during the postoperative period.

HylaSine™, hylan B gel is a sterile, transparent, viscoelastic gel composed of cross-linked polymers of hyaluronan. This hyaluranon is a bioresorbable material that functions to fill nasal/sinus cavities following surgery or trauma and to keep mucosal surfaces separate during the healing process. During this time, the tamponade effect helps control minimal bleeding normally associated with routine sinus surgery. HylaSine leaves the site of placement by natural elimination, or it may be aspirated from the cavity earlier at the discretion of the physician.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for a medical device called Hylasine™ Hylan B Gel, an intranasal splint. However, it does not contain information about explicit acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, nor does it detail device performance metrics.

Instead, the document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. This is a common pathway for Class II and Class I medical devices in the US, where the focus is on showing that the new device is as safe and effective as a device already on the market, rather than requiring extensive clinical trials to prove efficacy against specific, predefined performance metrics.

Here's a breakdown of what is and is not present in the provided text, based on your requested categories:

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

• Not present. The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "device must reduce adhesions by X%"). It also does not report specific performance metrics from a study (e.g., "adhesion rate was Y%"). The closest it comes to a "performance" comparison is highlighting shared indications for use and material composition with predicate devices, implying similar performance.

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

• Not present. There is no mention of a "test set" or any clinical study data involving human subjects to evaluate Hylasine™'s performance. The 510(k) submission is based on comparison to existing devices.

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)

• Not present. As no test set or clinical study is described, there's no mention of experts or ground truth establishment in this context.

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

• Not present. No clinical study or adjudication method is described.

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 present. This device is a physical intranasal splint, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI-related effectiveness study is irrelevant and not mentioned.

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

• Not present. This device is a physical product, not an algorithm.

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

• Not present. No clinical studies are described where a ground truth would be established. The "ground truth" for this 510(k) submission is the regulatory acceptance of its predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not present. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI/algorithm-based device.

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

• Not present. No training set is mentioned.

Summary of the Document's Approach:

The provided 510(k) summary for Hylasine™ follows an approach of substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "study" here is essentially a comparison of the new device's characteristics (intended use, material composition, bioresorbability, product code) to those of existing, legally marketed devices.

The acceptance criteria for a 510(k) submission like this are implicitly:

• The device has the same intended use as a predicate device.
• The device has the same technological characteristics as a predicate device, OR, if it has different technological characteristics, these differences do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.

The document demonstrates this by presenting a table comparing Hylasine™ to three predicate devices (Xomed MeroGel™, Boston Medical Custom Nasal Splint, LactoSorb Ethmoid Stent) across several attributes. The FDA's letter (K012532) confirms that based on this comparison, Hylasine™ was found to be substantially equivalent to the referenced predicate devices, allowing it to be marketed.

Ask a specific question about this device

Intended Use: For the quantitative determination of α-Amylase activity in human serum or plasma.
Indications for Use: Levels of serum and plasma α-amylase in patients have provided needed evidence for the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. For In Vitro Diagnostic Use.

The Genzyme Direct Amylase Reagent is a quantitative method for the detection of a-amylase activity in serum and plasma.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Genzyme Direct Amylase Reagent, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

Product Name: Genzyme Direct α-Amylase Test Reagent
Common Name: Reagent for α-Amylase Test
Intended Use: For the quantitative determination of α-Amylase activity in human serum or plasma for the diagnosis of Pancreatitis.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria values for each metric (e.g., "The slope must be between X and Y"). Instead, it presents the results of the performance studies and then concludes that these results are "acceptable" or "excellent," implying that the observed performance met their internal criteria. Based on the provided text, the acceptance criteria are inferred from these conclusions.

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

• Sample Size (Test Set):

  • Comparative Performance Study: 50 samples
  • Linearity Study: Not specified, but data points would typically cover the range up to 2000 U/L.
  • Precision Studies (Within-Run & Between-Run):
    • Within-Run: Each of 3 serum pools tested 20 times. (3 pools * 20 tests = 60 measurements)
    • Between-Run: Each of 3 serum pools tested in duplicate, twice per day, for at least five days, totaling 40 determinations per pool. (3 pools * 40 measurements = 120 measurements)
  • Interference Studies: "a specimen pool" was used, with varying levels of interferents added. Specific number of test samples per interferent not specified beyond "a specimen pool."

• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. Given it's a 510(k) submission to the FDA, it's typically for the US market, but the sample origin is not stated. The studies are prospective in nature, as they are specifically conducted to evaluate the performance of the Genzyme Direct Amylase Reagent.

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

This type of in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device for quantitative biochemical measurement does not typically involve human expert readers for establishing "ground truth" in the same way imaging devices do.

• For the Comparative Performance Study, the "ground truth" is defined by the results obtained from the predicate method (Roche Boehringer Mannheim α-Amylase/EPS) using the same 50 samples. This is a comparison against a legally marketed and accepted method, not expert consensus on qualitative interpretation.
• For Linearity, Precision, and Interference Studies, the "ground truth" is established by the inherent properties of the samples themselves (known concentrations, spiked interferents, etc.) as measured by the device and the reference methods used to prepare or characterize those samples (e.g., gravimetric for spiking, reference methods for initial concentrations). There are no "experts" establishing image interpretations or diagnoses.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable for this type of quantitative IVD performance study. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are typically used when subjective review or interpretation by multiple human experts is involved, such as in clinical trials evaluating diagnostic accuracy of imaging or pathology results. The performance is assessed through statistical comparisons to a reference method or known values.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is specifically designed for evaluating the impact of an AI-assisted tool on human reader performance, common in radiology or pathology. The Genzyme Direct Amylase Reagent is a standalone in-vitro diagnostic assay; it does not involve human readers interpreting results in a subjective or diagnostic manner that would be "assisted" by the device in the context of an MRMC study. Its performance is measured directly (e.g., U/L) and compared to another quantitative method.

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

Yes, the entire series of studies described (Comparative Performance, Linearity, Precision, Interference) are essentially standalone performance studies for the Genzyme Direct Amylase Reagent. The device itself is the algorithm/method being evaluated, and its performance is measured directly from the assay results without human interpretative input in the loop for the performance metrics.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Comparative Performance Study: The ground truth was the measurements obtained from the predicate method (Roche Boehringer Mannheim α-Amylase/EPS). This is a reference method comparison.
• Linearity Study: The ground truth was based on the known dilution series or spiked concentrations of α-amylase, demonstrating the device's ability to accurately measure over a range.
• Precision Study: The ground truth was the mean concentration of α-amylase within the serum pools, with the study assessing the device's variability around that mean.
• Interference Study: The ground truth was the known concentrations of purified interfering substances (e.g., Liposyn, Triglyceride, etc.) added to a specimen pool. The goal was to show that these known interferents did not affect the amylase measurement.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or any machine learning/AI algorithms that would require one. The Genzyme Direct Amylase Reagent appears to be a traditional biochemical reagent-based assay, not an AI/ML powered device. Its "learning" comes from its chemical formulation and calibration, not from data-driven training.

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

As no training set is mentioned or implied for this type of traditional IVD device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device