Search Results

The BD MAX Vaginal Panel performed on the BD MAX System is an automated qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direction of DNA targets from bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis (qualitative results reported based on detection and quantitation of targeted organism markers), Candida species associated with vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis from vaginal swabs in patients who are symptomatic for vaginitis/vaginosis. The test utilizes real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the amplification of specific DNA targets and utilizes fluorogenic target-specific hybridization probes to detect and differentiate DNA from:

• . Bacterial vaginosis markers (Individual markers not reported)
  Lactobacillus spp. (L. crispatus and L. jensenii) Gardnerella vaginalis Atopobium vaginae Bacterial Vaginosis Associated Bacteria-2 (BVAB-2) Megasphaera-1
• . Candida spp. (C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, C. dubliniensis)
• Candida glabrata
• Candida krusei
• . Trichomonas vaginalis

The BD MAX Vaginal Panel is intended to aid in the diagnosis of vaginal infections in women with a clinical presentation consistent with bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis and trichomoniasis.

The BD MAX System and the BD MAX Vaginal Panel are comprised of an instrument with associated hardware and accessories, disposable microfluidic cartridges, master mixes, unitized reagent strips, and extraction reagents. The instrument automates sample preparation including target lysis, DNA extraction and concentration, reagent rehydration, target nucleic acid amplification and detection using real-time PCR. The assay includes a Sample Processing Control (SPC) that is present in the Extraction Tube. The SPC monitors DNA extraction steps, thermal cycling steps, reagent integrity and the presence of inhibitory substances. The BD MAX System software automatically interprets test results. For the BD MAX Vaginal Panel, a test result may be called as POS, NEG or UNR (Unresolved) based on the amplification status of the targets and of the Sample Processing Control. IND (Indeterminate) or INC (Incomplete) results are due to BD MAX System failure.

This is an FDA 510(k) summary for the BD MAX Vaginal Panel for detecting microorganisms associated with vaginitis and bacterial vaginosis. The document describes the device, its intended use, and its equivalence to a predicate device. While it mentions performance standards, it does not contain detailed acceptance criteria, device performance data, information on the study design (sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods), or any multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study results.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be filled from the provided text.

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

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy thresholds). The document broadly refers to "Performance Standards" based on the Class II Special Controls Guideline for NAAT assays for Trichomonas vaginalis.
• Reported Device Performance: Not provided in this document. This summary focuses on substantial equivalence based on technological characteristics and intended use.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned.

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 mentioned.

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

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable. This is a molecular diagnostic test, not an AI-assisted imaging device or a test involving human readers in the interpretation loop.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: The device is a standalone molecular diagnostic assay. The results are "automatically interpreted" by the BD MAX System software, which indicates algorithm-only performance. However, specific standalone performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity etc.) are not provided.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not mentioned for the studies supporting this 510(k) submission. For molecular tests, ground truth typically involves culture or a validated composite reference method.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not mentioned.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not mentioned.

Summary Table of Available Information:

Ask a specific question about this device

The BD MAX Vaginal Panel performed on the BD MAX System is an automated qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection of DNA targets from bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis (qualitative results reported based on detection and quantitation of targeted organism markers), Candida species associated with vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis from vaginal swabs in patients who are symptomatic for vaginitis/vaginosis. The test utilizes real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the amplification of specific DNA targets and utilizes fluorogenic target-specific hybridization probes to detect and differentiate DNA from:

• Bacterial vaginosis markers (Individual markers not reported)
  • O Lactobacillus spp. (L. crispatus and L. jensenii)
  • Gardnerella vaginalis о
  • o Atopobium vaginae
  • Bacterial Vaginosis Associated Bacteria-2 (BVAB-2) o
  • o Megasphaera-1
• Candida spp. (C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, C. dubliniensis) ●
• Candida glabrata
• Candida krusei ●
• Trichomonas vaginalis

The BD MAX Vaginal Panel is intended to aid in the diagnosis of vaginal infections in women with a clinical presentation consistent with bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis and trichomoniasis.

The BD MAX System and the BD MAX Vaginal Panel are comprised of an instrument with associated hardware and accessories, disposable microfluidic cartridges, master mixes, unitized reagent strips, and extraction reagents. The instrument automates sample preparation including target lysis. DNA extraction and concentration, reagent rehydration, target nucleic acid amplification and detection using real-time PCR. The assay includes a Sample Processing Control (SPC) that is present in the Extraction Tube. The SPC monitors DNA extraction steps, thermal cycling steps, reagent integrity and the presence of inhibitory substances. The BD MAX System software automatically interprets test results. For the BD MAX Vaginal Panel, a test result may be called as POS, NEG or UNR (Unresolved) based on the amplification status of the targets and of the Sample Processing Control. IND (Indeterminate) or INC (Incomplete) results are due to BD MAX System failure.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for BD MAX Vaginal Panel

The BD MAX Vaginal Panel is an automated qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection of DNA targets from bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis, Candida species associated with vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis from vaginal swabs in symptomatic patients. The device's performance was evaluated through a prospective clinical study and various analytical studies.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device are not explicitly stated as distinct numerical thresholds in the provided document for all metrics. Instead, the document presents detailed performance characteristics from various studies, implying that the observed performance was acceptable for De Novo classification. For the purpose of this response, I will infer "acceptance criteria" where possible from general regulatory expectations for diagnostic devices and the context of the reported results (e.g., successful detection, high agreement). The "Reported Device Performance" will reflect the results from the clinical and analytical studies.

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

Test Set (Clinical Study):

• Total subjects enrolled: 1763
• Compliant subjects: 1740
• Compliant specimens with reportable results:
  • Bacterial Vaginosis: 1559 (clinician-collected), 1582 (self-collected)
  • Candida: 1618 (clinician-collected), 1628 (self-collected)
  • Trichomonas vaginalis: 1600 (clinician-collected), 1610 (self-collected)
• Asymptomatic Women (separate evaluation): 202 women
• Contrived Specimens for C. glabrata and C. krusei: 50 strains each, developed at various concentrations, plus 50 true negative specimens for each organism.

Data Provenance:

• The data for the primary clinical study was prospective.
• Specimen collection occurred at 10 geographically diverse specimen collection sites. Seven sites performed collection only, and three performed both collection and testing with the BD MAX Vaginal Panel. (The country of origin is not explicitly stated but is implicitly the US given FDA submission context).
• Analytical studies (Precision, LoD, Inclusivity, Interference, Stability, Specificity) used simulated vaginal matrix and/or natural negative vaginal matrix, and commercially available organisms/plasmid DNA.

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

The document specifies the reference methods used to establish ground truth but does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts involved in the interpretation of these reference methods.

• BV status: Determined using a combination of Nugent Score and Amsel's criteria. These methods typically involve microscopic evaluation by trained laboratory personnel or clinicians, but specific expert qualifications (e.g., years of experience, specific certifications) are not detailed.
• Candida spp. status: Determined by selective (Candida) chromogenic medium and Sabouraud Dextrose Emmons plate cultures. PCR amplification targeting the its2 gene was performed followed by bi-directional sequencing to identify yeast isolates. Interpretation of cultures and sequencing results would be performed by trained microbiologists or laboratory specialists.
• Trichomonas vaginalis status: Determined by a composite of microscopic visualization of motile trichomonads in saline wet mounts of vaginal secretion and by culture. A positive result by either method categorized the patient as positive. Microscopic visualization implies examination by trained personnel.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method for discordant results between the reference methods themselves or between the device and reference methods.

• For BV, "Specimens with normal flora as per the Nugent Score were considered negative: those positive for BV flora were considered positive while those with intermediate BV flora were segregated into positive or negative categories using Amsel's criteria." This implies a defined algorithm for combining the reference standards rather than a separate expert adjudication panel.
• For Trichomonas vaginalis, "A positive result either by wet mount or by culture was sufficient to categorize the patient as positive." This constitutes a composite reference standard.
• For analyses of discordant results (e.g., for T. vaginalis false negatives and false positives, or C. glabrata false negatives), the document mentions further evaluation with an "FDA-cleared molecular method" or assessing growth levels from chromagar, which indicates further diagnostic investigation rather than expert consensus adjudication of initial reference results.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is an automated, standalone molecular diagnostic test. It does not involve human readers interpreting images or data to make a diagnosis that would then be compared with and without AI assistance. Therefore, there is no effect size reported for human readers improving with vs. without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done. The entire premise of the clinical and analytical studies is to evaluate the BD MAX Vaginal Panel's performance on its own, comparing its direct output (qualitative detection of DNA targets) to established reference methods. The system automates sample preparation, DNA extraction, amplification, detection, and interpretation of test results (POS, NEG, or UNR). The clinical performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) presented in Tables 17-36 represent the standalone performance of the device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the clinical study was a composite reference standard:

• Bacterial Vaginosis: A combination of Nugent Score and Amsel's criteria.
• Candida spp.: Culture (chromogenic medium and Sabouraud Dextrose Emmons plate cultures) followed by PCR amplification targeting the its2 gene and bi-directional sequencing for species identification.
• Trichomonas vaginalis: A composite of microscopic visualization of motile trichomonads in saline wet mounts of vaginal secretion and culture.

This approach combines multiple diagnostic methods to establish the most accurate possible "true" status for each patient's sample.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly state the sample size for a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI model development. The BD MAX Vaginal Panel is described as a nucleic acid-based test utilizing real-time PCR with fluorogenic target-specific hybridization probes, and software for automated interpretation based on amplification status. While there's an "Assay Cut-off" section mentioning use of pre-clinical studies and prospective clinical study data to "validate these cut-offs" and "ROC curve analysis was performed to confirm the optimal cutoffs," this typically refers to refining analytical thresholds based on observed performance from early testing rather than training a complex AI model in the conventional sense.

The "pre-clinical studies" and "LoD confirmation study" using simulated and natural vaginal matrices, as well as the "multi-site prospective clinical study" mentioned for validation of cut-offs, represent data used to establish and confirm the device's operational parameters. However, calling these a "training set" in the context of advanced AI algorithms (like those in machine learning) might be a misinterpretation given the nature of a PCR-based diagnostic with defined analytical cut-offs. The largest dataset mentioned for performance evaluation is the prospective clinical study (1763 enrolled subjects).

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

As noted above, a distinct "training set" for an AI model (in the sense of supervised learning) is not explicitly described. However, if we interpret "training set" broadly as the data used to initially establish and refine the device's operational parameters and cut-offs, the ground truth was derived from the following:

• Pre-clinical studies: Utilized targeted organisms (or plasmid DNA) spiked into simulated vaginal matrix at varying, known concentrations (e.g., for LoD determination, precision studies). The "expected result" in these analytical studies served as the ground truth.
• Prospective clinical study data: Data from the 1763 enrolled subjects (used to "validate these cut-offs" and performing ROC analysis) employed the composite reference standards described in section 7 (Nugent/Amsel for BV, Culture/Sequencing for Candida, Wet Mount/Culture for T. vaginalis). These reference methods collectively established the ground truth for clinical specimens against which the device's performance, including its cut-offs, was evaluated and confirmed.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BD MAX™ StaphSR assay performed on the BD MAX™ System is an automated qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection and differentiation of Staphylococcus aureus (SA) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) DNA from nasal swabs in patients at risk for nasal colonization. The test utilizes realtime polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the amplification of MRSA/SA DNA and fluorogenic target-specific hybridization probes for the detection of the amplified DNA. The BD MAX™ StaphSR assay is intended to aid in the prevention and control of MRSA and SA infections in healthcare settings. It is not intended to diagnose MRSA or SA infections nor guide or monitor treatment for MRSA/SA infections. A negative result does not preclude nasal colonization. Concomitant cultures are necessary to recover organisms for epidemiological typing or for further susceptibility testing.

The BD MAX™ System and the BD MAX™ StaphSR assay are comprised of an instrument with associated hardware and accessories, disposable microfluidic cartridges, master mixes, unitized reagent strips, extraction reagents, and sample buffer tubes. The instrument automates sample preparation including target lysis, DNA extraction and concentration, reagent rehydration, and target nucleic acid amplification and detection using real-time PCR. The assay includes a Sample Processing Control (SPC) that is present in the Extraction Tube. The SPC monitors DNA extraction steps, thermal cycling steps, reagent integrity and the presence of inhibitory substances. The BD MAX™ System software automatically interprets test results. A test result may be called as [SA NEG MRSA NEG (negative)], [SA POS, MRSA POS (MRSA positive)], [SA POS, MRSA NEG (SA positive)] or [SA UNR, MRSA UNR (Unresolved)] based on the amplification status of the target and of the Sample Processing Control. IND (Indeterminate) or INC (Incomplete) results are due to BD MAX™ System failure.

The BD MAX™ StaphSR assay is an automated qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection and differentiation of Staphylococcus aureus (SA) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) DNA from nasal swabs. The performance of the device was evaluated in both analytical and clinical studies.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the BD MAX™ StaphSR assay are primarily based on achieving certain levels of sensitivity and specificity when compared against a reference method (direct culture complemented by enriched culture). The document details the reported performance for MRSA and SA detection.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Performance for BD MAX™ StaphSR Assay

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

For the clinical performance studies, a total of 2451 specimens were enrolled. After excluding non-compliant specimens, 2354 specimen results were used to determine the clinical performance against the Reference Method, and 2393 specimen results were used for comparison against Direct Culture.

The data provenance for the clinical study is prospective, collected from three geographically diverse investigational centers. The specific countries of origin for these centers are not explicitly stated.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts used to establish the ground truth or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with X years of experience). However, the ground truth was established using laboratory methods rather than expert interpretation of images or clinical assessments.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method for the clinical test set involved a Comparative Reference Method consisting of direct culture complemented by enriched culture.

• For specimens negative for MRSA or SA by direct culture, enriched culture analysis was performed.
• Presumptive S. aureus colonies on chromogenic medium were subcultured onto Blood Agar (BA) for identification confirmation with an agglutination test.
• Methicillin resistance was confirmed by Cefoxitin disk (30 µg) diffusion susceptibility testing.
• Enrichment in Trypticase Soy Broth with 6.5% NaCl was carried out if MRSA or SA was not confirmed by initial direct culture.
• Turbid TSB 6.5% NaCl broth was used to inoculate additional chromogenic medium and BA plates, and MRSA confirmation followed the same procedure.
• Further investigation was performed on specimens with discordant results between the Reference Method and the BD MAX™ StaphSR assay. For MRSA, 12 of 54 false positive and 5 of 11 false negative BD MAX™ StaphSR specimens were re-evaluated by the Reference Method. For SA, 28 of 118 false positive and 23 of 52 false negative BD MAX™ StaphSR specimens were re-evaluated by the Reference Method.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, What was the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs Without AI Assistance

This information is not applicable as the BD MAX™ StaphSR assay is an automated in vitro diagnostic test (molecular assay) for direct detection of DNA. It does not involve "human readers" or AI assistance in the interpretation of results in the context of an MRMC study. The device provides an automated interpretation of results.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The BD MAX™ StaphSR assay is an automated instrument-based test that directly provides a qualitative result ([SA NEG MRSA NEG], [SA POS, MRSA POS], [SA POS, MRSA NEG], or [SA UNR, MRSA UNR]). The clinical performance data presented in Tables 10-17 directly reflect the standalone performance of the assay compared to the reference microbiological methods.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for both the analytical and clinical studies was based on microbiological culture methods:

• Direct culture complemented by enriched culture for clinical performance evaluation.
• Cultured bacterial suspensions and well-characterized clinical isolates for analytical studies (e.g., LoD, inclusivity, specificity, competitive inhibitory effect).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document describes premarket studies for a diagnostic device. For such devices, there isn't typically a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Instead, development and optimization are performed using various analytical samples and potentially some initial clinical samples, followed by a robust validation (clinical performance) on an independent set. The details of any specific samples used for internal development or optimization (analogous to a training set) are not provided in this 510(k) summary. The provided sample sizes relate to the analytical validation and the final clinical validation dataset.

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

Given that this is a molecular diagnostic assay and not an AI/ML-based image interpretation product, the concept of a "training set" with ground truth established in that context is not directly applicable. If one were to consider the samples used for assay development and optimization as a "training set," their ground truth would have been established through known bacterial cultures (characterized strains, quantified suspensions) and potentially well-characterized clinical isolates with confirmed microbiological status (e.g., through traditional culture, biochemical tests, and susceptibility testing). However, specific details of such "pre-validation" ground truth establishment are not provided in this regulatory summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BD MAX™ Cdiff Assay performed on the BD MAX™ System is an automated in vitro diagnostic test for the direct, qualitative detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin B gene (tcdB) in human liquid or soft stool specimens from patients suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI). The test. performed directly on the specimen, utilizes real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the amplification of C. difficile toxin B gene DNA and fluorogenic target-specific hybridization probes for the detection of the amplified DNA. The BD MAX ™ Cdiff Assay is intended to aid in the diagnosis of CDI.

The BD MAX™ System and the BD MAX™ Cdiff Assay are comprised of an instrument with associated hardware and accessories, disposable microfluidic cartridges, master mixes, unitized reagent strips, extraction reagents, and sample buffer tubes. The instrument automates sample preparation including target Ivsis. DNA extraction and concentration, reagent rehydration, and target nucleic acid amplification and detection using real-time PCR. The assay includes a Sample Processing Control (SPC) that is present in the Extraction Tube. The SPC monitors DNA extraction steps, thermal cycling steps, reagent integrity and the presence of inhibitory substances. The BD MAX™ System software automatically interprets test result may be called as NEG (negative), POS (positive) or UNR (unresolved) based on the amplification status of the target and of the Sample Processing Control. IND (indeterminate) or INC (incomplete) results are due to BD MAX™ System failure.

BD MAX™ Cdiff Assay - Acceptance Criteria and Study Findings

The BD MAX™ Cdiff Assay is an automated in vitro diagnostic test for the direct, qualitative detection of the Clostridium difficile toxin B gene (tcdB) in human liquid or soft stool specimens. The assay is intended to aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document details various analytical and clinical performance studies, but explicit "acceptance criteria" for minimum performance thresholds (e.g., "Sensitivity must be >= 90%") are not stated in a direct, consolidated table. However, the reported performance metrics can be inferred as meeting the implicit acceptance criteria for the submission to be cleared.

Here's a summary of the reported device performance from the provided text, focusing on key metrics:

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set (Clinical Performance Studies):

  • Clinical Performance (vs. Reference Method): 1819 compliant and reportable results from 2071 initial soft or liquid stool specimens.
  • Clinical Performance (vs. Direct Culture): 1826 compliant and reportable results.
  • Comparison Studies: 2013 specimens tested across two external sites (specific breakdown per comparator assay: 647 for one and 1366 for the other).
  • Data Provenance: Multi-site prospective investigational study from six investigational centers. The document does not specify countries of origin, but the submitting company is Canadian. The study was prospective, as specimens were from "patients suspected of having C. difficile infection for which diagnostic tests were indicated and ordered."

• Training Set: The document does not provide specific details on a separate "training set" for algorithm development. This is common for molecular diagnostic assays where the "training" (e.g., selection of primers/probes, optimization of PCR conditions) is inherent in the assay's design and analytical validation, rather than a distinct machine learning training phase.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Ground Truth for Clinical Performance (Reference Method): The ground truth was established by a "Comparative Reference Method consisting of direct culture complemented by enriched culture." The anaerobic culture was used to isolate C. difficile, followed by confirmation of isolate identification and a "Tissue Culture Cytotoxicity Assay to determine the toxigenicity of the isolate." This process typically involves trained microbiology laboratory personnel, but the specific number and qualifications of "experts" (e.g., clinical microbiologists, laboratory directors) involved in establishing the final ground truth from this multi-step process are not explicitly stated in the document.

• Ground Truth for Analytical Studies (e.g., LoD, Inclusivity, Specificity): For analytical studies, ground truth was based on known concentrations of bacterial strains (CFU/mL or genomic copies/mL) or known presence/absence of certain organisms, established through standard laboratory methods of quantification and identification. No "experts" in the sense of clinical reviewers are typically involved in establishing these analytical truths.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 reviewer consensus) by human experts for the clinical test set results. The ground truth for the clinical performance was established by a "Comparative Reference Method" (direct culture + enriched culture + toxigenicity testing). Discordant results between the BD MAX™ Cdiff Assay and this Reference Method were further investigated:

• "27 of 48 False Positive BD MAX™ Cdiff specimens were also found to be positive using another commercially available FDA-cleared RT-PCR assay targeting the C. difficile tcdB gene."
• "32 of 37 False Negative BD MAX™ Cdiff specimens, were also found to be negative using another commercially available FDA-cleared RT-PCR assay targeting the C. difficile tcdB gene."
  This "further investigation" serves as a form of resolution for discordant cases but is not a traditional multi-reader "adjudication" process using human interpretation of images or clinical data.

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

No Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was described. The device is an automated in vitro diagnostic test that provides a qualitative (positive/negative) result, meaning there is no human "reader" in the loop for interpreting the assay's output that would then be compared to human performance with or without AI assistance. The study compares the device's performance against a reference method and other FDA-cleared molecular assays.

6. Standalone Performance

Yes, a standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study was done. The entire clinical and analytical performance evaluation describes the performance of the BD MAX™ Cdiff Assay as a standalone device. The assay automates sample preparation, nucleic acid amplification, and detection, with the BD MAX™ System software automatically interpreting test results as NEG (negative), POS (positive), or UNR (unresolved).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Performance Studies: The ground truth was based on a "Comparative Reference Method" which primarily relied on culture-based methods (direct and enriched anaerobic culture to isolate C. difficile) combined with a Tissue Culture Cytotoxicity Assay to determine the toxigenicity of the isolated strains. This represents a combination of microbiological culture and a functional assay (outcome of bacterial toxin activity on cells).
• Analytical Performance Studies (LoD, Inclusivity, Specificity): The ground truth was based on known characterized bacterial strains and their concentrations, determined by standard microbiological quantification methods.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a distinct "training set" sample size in the context of the device's development or a machine learning algorithm. For molecular diagnostic assays like this, the "training" involves the scientific development and optimization of the assay components (primers, probes, reaction conditions) performed by molecular biologists and R&D scientists, rather than a separate data-driven training phase for an AI model.

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

As described above, no explicit "training set" with established ground truth in the machine learning sense is detailed. The assay's design and optimization (analogous to "training" in AI development) would have utilized known positive and negative controls, characterized bacterial strains, and various concentrations to perfect the real-time PCR parameters and ensure accurate detection of the tcdB gene. This process involves standard laboratory validation techniques rather than human expert annotation for ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device