Search Results

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an in vitro quantitative assay for the measurement of allergen specific IgE in human serum. NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is to be used with the NOVEOS Immunoassay Analyzer. It is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic disorders in conjunction with other clinical findings and is to be used in clinical laboratories.

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an immunometric, chemiluminescent procedure for the quantitative determination of IgE of known specificity in human serum samples. It employs fluorescent labelled magnetic, streptavidin coated microparticles which are incubated with a biotinylated allergenic capture reagent, patient sample and monoclonal anti‐human IgE antibody: horseradish peroxidase conjugate. If present in the sample, IgE binds to the biotinylated allergen captured to the streptavidin‐coated microparticles to form a complex. After a final wash, the resulting complex is incubated with the enzyme substrate and a chemiluminescent signal is generated, the magnitude of which is proportional to the concentration of IgE in the patient sample. The concentration of allergen‐specific IgE is determined from a standard curve, which is traceable to the World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) 11/234.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the NOVEOS Specific IgE (sIgE) Assay outlines the device's performance, but it does NOT describe "acceptance criteria" in an explicit, quantifiable manner that is typically found in a clinical study report. Instead, the document presents study results and compares them to a predicate device (ImmunoCAP Specific IgE) to demonstrate substantial equivalence, and also to clinical diagnosis of allergic status. The closest approximations to acceptance criteria are implicit in the performance metrics presented (e.g., target ranges for sensitivity, specificity, agreement, precision, linearity).

This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an AI/ML-based diagnostic imaging or analysis system. Therefore, the concepts of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance," "standalone (algorithm only) performance," "number of experts," "adjudication method," and "training set ground truth establishment" do not directly apply in the same way they would for AI-powered diagnostic imaging devices. The "ground truth" for this IVD device is established through reference methods (Skin Prick Test, Oral Food Challenge, ImmunoCAP predicate device) or established clinical diagnosis.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is provided and how it relates to the requested points, with interpretations where necessary for IVD context:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As mentioned, explicit acceptance criteria are not stated. However, the performance data presented effectively serves as the "reported device performance" that presumably met the FDA's requirements for substantial equivalence. I will present the key performance metrics from the document.

Key Performance Metrics (Implicit Acceptance Criteria)

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

• Clinical Performance Study (Clinical Sensitivity & Specificity):

  • Sample Size: Ranges from 102 to 228 patients overall, depending on the specific allergen.
    • "Atopic" (positive) samples: 32 to 88 samples confirmed by skin-prick testing or oral food challenge.
    • "Non-Atopic" (negative) samples: 53 to 146 samples deemed negative by ImmunoCAP testing (result <0.35 kU/L).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study is described as a "clinical study," which implies real-world patient samples. It's unclear if the study was retrospective or prospective, but the description of "confirmed by skin-prick testing or oral food challenge" suggests a direct clinical evaluation.

• Method Comparison to ImmunoCAP:

  • Sample Size: Ranges from 175 to 268 patient samples, depending on the specific allergen.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). These are "patient samples," implying clinical origins. Retrospective or prospective nature is not specified.

• Precision/Reproducibility:

  • Sample Size: 80-86 replicates per sample for within-laboratory precision (4-5 samples per allergen).
  • Sample Size: 50-240 replicates per sample for lot-to-lot imprecision (4 samples per allergen).

• Linearity:

  • Sample Size: Three sets of serially diluted human serum samples (low, mid, high concentration) for each allergen. Dilutions created up to 1/32.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

For an IVD device like this, "experts" in the sense of radiologists interpreting images are not directly involved in setting the ground truth for the device's output. The ground truth is laboratory or clinical reference standards.

• Clinical Study Ground Truth: "Allergic status (atopic) was confirmed by skin-prick testing or oral food challenge, and the other 53 to 146 samples were deemed negative (non‐atopic) by ImmunoCAP testing (result <0.35 kU/L)."

  • Number of Experts: Not specified. Skin-prick testing and oral food challenges are clinical procedures typically performed and interpreted by allergists or clinicians skilled in allergy diagnosis. ImmunoCAP testing is a laboratory-based method.
  • Qualifications of Experts: Implied to be medical professionals (allergists/clinicians) and laboratory personnel capable of performing and interpreting these established diagnostic tests. No specific "years of experience" or board certifications are mentioned.

• Method Comparison Ground Truth: The ImmunoCAP Specific IgE Assay (K051218) is used as the comparative "ground truth." This is a legally marketed predicate device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable for this type of IVD device. The ground truth is based on established clinical diagnostic procedures (skin-prick test, oral food challenge) and a comparative predicate laboratory assay (ImmunoCAP), not on multiple human interpretations requiring adjudication.

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

• MRMC Study: No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for diagnostic imaging devices where human readers interpret medical images, often with and without AI assistance. This device is an in vitro diagnostic assay that directly measures a biomarker in serum.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the Loop) Performance

• Standalone Performance: The reported performance of the NOVEOS sIgE Assay (clinical sensitivity/specificity, agreement with ImmunoCAP, precision, linearity, etc.) is the standalone performance of the assay system. It operates automatically to measure allergen-specific IgE levels. There isn't a "human-in-the-loop" aspect to its direct output generation; it provides a quantitative result. The interpretation of that result for clinical diagnosis happens after the device provides its measurement, "in conjunction with other clinical findings."

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Study Ground Truth:

  • Clinical Diagnosis: Allergic status was confirmed by skin-prick testing or oral food challenge (for atopic individuals). These are considered definitive clinical methods for allergy diagnosis.
  • Predicate Device Result: Samples deemed non-atopic were confirmed by ImmunoCAP testing (result <0.35 kU/L).

• Method Comparison Study Ground Truth:

  • Predicate Device Result: The ImmunoCAP Specific IgE Assay results were used as the comparator.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set: This device is a quantitative in vitro diagnostic immunoassay, not a machine learning or AI algorithm in the traditional sense that requires distinct "training" datasets for model development. The development of such assays involves extensive analytical validation (e.g., reagent optimization, calibration curve establishment, linearity, precision) using various characterized samples and controls, but this is different from an AI model's "training set." The document describes various validation studies, but does not refer to a "training set" for an algorithm.

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

• Ground Truth Establishment for Training Set: Not applicable as described above. The assay's performance characteristics (e.g., calibration, measurement range) are established through a rigorous and well-defined analytical validation process, typically using reference materials, characterized control samples, and patient samples with known concentrations/statuses, rather than through ground truth established for an AI "training set." The calibrators are traceable to the World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) 11/234, which serves as a fundamental "truth" reference for IgE measurement.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an in vitro quantitative assay for the measurement of allergen specific IgE in human serum. NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is to be used with the NOVEOS Immunoassay Analyzer. It is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic disorders in conjunction with other clinical findings and is to be used in clinical laboratories.

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an immunometric, chemiluminescent procedure for the quantitative determination of IgE of known specificity in human serum samples. It employs fluorescent labelled magnetic, streptavidin coated microparticles which are incubated with a biotinylated allergenic capture reagent, patient sample and monoclonal anti-human IgE antibody: horseradish peroxidase conjugate. If present in the sample, IgE binds to the biotinylated allergen captured to the streptavidin-coated microparticles to form a complex. After a final wash, the resulting complex is incubated with the enzyme substrate and a chemiluminescent signal is generated, the magnitude of which is proportional to the concentration of IgE in the patient sample.

The concentration of allergen-specific IgE is determined from a standard curve, which is traceable to the World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) 11/234.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the NOVEOS Specific IgE (sIgE) Assay, Capture Reagent M006, Alternaria alternata, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Information

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

• Clinical Performance Comparison to ImmunoCAP:

  • Sample Size: 257 samples
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin), but implies laboratory testing of human serum samples. The study is presented as part of a 510(k) submission, typically indicating data relevant for regulatory approval.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated.

• Clinical Performance (vs. Clinical Diagnosis):

  • Sample Size: 182 patients (65 with allergic status confirmed by skin-prick testing and clinical history, 117 from healthy, non-atopic donors).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin).
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated.

• Precision/Reproducibility:

  • Sample Size: Six samples (1 negative, 3 positive patient samples, 2 controls), each assayed for 80 replicates total (2 runs/day for 20 days, duplicate replicates).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, likely prospective laboratory testing.

• Lot-to-Lot Imprecision:

  • Sample Size: Six samples, each assayed for 240 replicates total (3 different lots, 2 replicates/run, 2 runs/day for 20 days).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, likely prospective laboratory testing.

• Site-to-Site Reproducibility:

  • Sample Size: 6 samples (4 patient pools and 2 controls), each tested for 75 replicates total (5 replicates/run, 1 run/day for 5 days, across 3 sites).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, likely prospective laboratory testing.

• Linearity:

  • Sample Size: Dilutions of M006 specific IgE samples with analyte concentrations from 0.17 to 41.9 kU/L. The number of individual samples/dilutions used for the regression is not explicitly stated, but the range is.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, likely prospective laboratory testing.

• Detection Limit (LoB, LoD, LoQ):

  • Sample Size: 60 replicates of analyte-free samples, 300 replicates of low IgE samples (for LoB/LoD). For LoQ, a panel of seven low analyte samples was assayed in 80 replicates total (replicates of two, 2 runs/day for 20 days).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated, likely prospective laboratory testing.

• Reference Range:

  • Sample Size: 127 apparently healthy subjects.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Not explicitly stated.

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

• For the Clinical Performance vs. Clinical Diagnosis study: The allergic status of 65 samples was confirmed by "skin-prick testing and clinical history." This implies that the ground truth was established by medical professionals (allergy specialists, physicians) who conduct these tests and histories, but the number and specific qualifications of these experts are not mentioned.
• For other studies (e.g., ImmunoCAP comparison, precision, linearity), the ground truth is based on the performance of the predicate device, or established values in quality control materials, or analytical measurements, rather than expert interpretation of individual cases.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• For the Clinical Performance vs. Clinical Diagnosis study: The text states "allergic status was confirmed by skin-prick testing and clinical history." This suggests a consensus-based approach by the clinicians involved in the diagnosis, but no formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is described.
• For the ImmunoCAP comparison study, the "ground truth" is the result from the ImmunoCAP predicate device. No expert adjudication is applicable in this context.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay for quantitative measurement of IgE, not an AI-powered image analysis or diagnostic assist device where human readers would be involved in interpreting results in combination with the device's output. The device produces quantitative values directly.

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

• Yes, this is a standalone device in the context of its intended use. The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay, used with the NOVEOS Immunoassay Analyzer, is an automated system that "automatically generate results" for allergen-specific IgE levels. It directly provides a quantitative measurement. While the interpretation of these results for clinical diagnosis requires a trained clinician ("in conjunction with other clinical findings"), the device itself operates as a standalone analytical tool.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Clinical Performance vs. ImmunoCAP: The ground truth was the results from the legally marketed predicate device (ImmunoCAP Specific IgE).
• Clinical Performance vs. Clinical Diagnosis: The ground truth was established by expert clinical diagnosis based on "skin-prick testing and clinical history."
• Precision/Reproducibility: The ground truth is inherent in the known values of controls and patient samples for measuring variability.
• Linearity/Detection Limits: The ground truth is based on analytically determined concentrations/dilutions of samples.
• Reference Range: The ground truth for healthy individuals was defined by testing samples from "apparently healthy subjects" to establish expected physiological levels.
• Interference/Cross-Reactivity/Competitive Inhibition: Ground truth derived from known concentrations of interfering substances or related/unrelated allergens to assess their impact on assay performance.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The document describes performance studies for a diagnostic assay, not a machine learning algorithm that typically requires a large training set. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the sense of an ML model being trained on data. The studies and samples described are for validation and verification of the assay's analytical and clinical performance.

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

• As indicated in point 8, there isn't a "training set" in the conventional machine learning sense for this type of IVD immunoassay. The device's underlying principles are based on established immunometric and chemiluminescent assay technologies, not a data-driven learning algorithm. The "ground truth" for calibrators and controls used in the analytical process is established through rigorous laboratory methods, often traceable to international reference standards like the World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) 11/234, as mentioned in the "Calibrator Traceability" section.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an in vitro quantitative assay for the measurement of allergen specific IgE in human serum. NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is to be used with the NOVEOS Immunoassay Analyzer. It is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic disorders in conjunction with other clinical findings and is to be used in clinical laboratories.

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an immunometric, chemilyminescent procedure for the quantitative determination of IgE of known specificity in human serum samples. It employs fluorescent labelled magnetic, streptavidin coated microparticles which are incubated with a biotinylated allergenic capture reagent, patient sample and monoclonal anti-human IgE antibody: horseradish peroxidase conjugate. After a final wash, the resulting complex is incubated with the enzyme substrate and a chemiluminescent signal is generated, the magnitude of which is proportional to the concentration of IgE in the patient sample. The concentration of allergen-specific IgE is determined from a standard curve, which is traceable to the World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IqE) 11/234.

This document describes the validation of the NOVEOS Specific IgE (sIgE) assays for Cat Dander (E001, Felis domesticus) and Timothy Grass (G006, Phleum pratense). This is a quantitative in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI/ML powered device. Therefore, many of the typical acceptance criteria for AI models, such as MRMC studies, ground truth establishment by experts, and training set details, are not applicable.

The acceptance criteria for this device are based on its analytical and clinical performance when compared to a legally marketed predicate device (ImmunoCAP Specific IgE Assay) and clinical diagnosis.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are generally implied by the performance metrics reported and the statistical analysis acceptable for FDA clearance of an in vitro diagnostic device of this type. The key performance indicators for a quantitative assay would typically include linearity, precision (imprecision/reproducibility), agreement with a predicate device, and clinical concordance (sensitivity and specificity).

Performance Table for NOVEOS Specific IgE (sIgE) Assays

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

The document describes several test sets for different performance evaluations.

• Agreement with Predicate Device (Comparative Study):
  • E001: 242 clinical samples.
  • G006: 238 clinical samples.
  • Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It refers to "clinical samples" and "patient samples" without further geographical details. The studies are assumed to be retrospective as they involve collecting and testing existing clinical samples.
• Clinical Performance Study:
  • E001: 200 samples (70 samples with allergic status confirmed by skin-prick testing and clinical history, and 130 samples from healthy, non-atopic donors with no reported allergy).
  • G006: 188 samples (63 samples with allergic status confirmed by skin-prick testing and clinical history, and 125 samples from healthy, non-atopic donors with no reported allergy).
  • Data Provenance: Similar to the predicate comparison, the country of origin is not specified, and the studies appear to be retrospective.
• Reference Range Verification:
  • E001: 132 apparently healthy subjects.
  • G006: 127 apparently healthy subjects.

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

For this type of in vitro diagnostic device, "experts" in the context of AI models (e.g., radiologists interpreting images) are not directly applicable.

• For Agreement with Predicate: The ground truth is the result obtained from the predicate device (ImmunoCAP Specific IgE Assay), which is a previously FDA-cleared and legally marketed device.
• For Clinical Performance: The ground truth for the clinical study was established by "skin-prick testing and clinical history". This implies that clinical professionals (e.g., allergists, physicians) made the diagnosis of "allergic status" or "non-atopic" based on standard medical procedures and patient history, rather than experts reviewing data specifically for the study.

The number and qualifications of these clinical professionals are not specified in the document, as it's a standard clinical diagnostic process rather than a specific panel of experts assembled for ground truth annotation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for subjective assessments (e.g., image interpretation by multiple human readers). For this quantitative in vitro diagnostic device:

• For Agreement with Predicate: There is no specific "adjudication" in the sense of reconciling differing expert opinions. The comparison is directly between the quantitative results of the new device and the predicate device.
• For Clinical Performance: The "allergic status" or "non-atopic" ground truth was established by clinical diagnosis (skin-prick testing and clinical history). While clinical diagnosis often involves physician judgment, the document does not describe a formal multi-reader adjudication process; it refers to the standard clinical standard of care.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is an in vitro diagnostic assay (a laboratory test) that measures a biomarker (specific IgE) in human serum. It is not an AI-powered image analysis device or a device that directly assists human readers in interpreting complex visual data. Therefore, 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

Yes, the primary performance evaluation of this device is standalone. The NOVEOS Specific IgE assay is an automated in vitro diagnostic test performed on the NOVEOS Immunoassay Analyzer. Its performance (quantitative measurement of IgE) is assessed directly through analytical studies (linearity, imprecision, detection limits, interference, cross-reactivity) and comparison to a predicate device/clinical diagnosis, without human intervention in the measurement process itself. The result is a quantitative value used by clinicians in conjunction with other findings.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Agreement with Predicate: The ground truth was based on the results obtained from the legally marketed predicate device (ImmunoCAP Specific IgE Assay). This is a common approach for establishing substantial equivalence for new IVD assays.
• For Clinical Performance: The ground truth for allergic status was established by clinical diagnosis, specifically "skin-prick testing and clinical history." This is considered an objective clinical standard for diagnosing allergic disorders.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This document describes the validation of an immunoassay, not an AI/ML model that requires "training sets" in the conventional sense. The device is a chemical/biological assay system. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

The studies described are for validation/testing of the already developed assay.

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

As stated above, there is no "training set" for an AI/ML model for this type of device. The assay's "performance characteristics" (e.g., reagent formulations, assay parameters) would have been optimized during the device development phase, which is an engineering/chemistry process, not an AI model training process that uses labeled ground truth data.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an in vitro quantitative assay for the measurement of allergen specific IgE in human serum. NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is to be used with the NOVEOS Immunoassay Analyzer. It is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic disorders in conjunction with other clinical findings and is to be used in clinical laboratories.

The NOVEOS™ Specific IgE Assay is an immunometric, chemiluminescent procedure for the quantitative determination of IgE of known specificity in human serum samples. It employs fluorescent labelled magnetic, streptavidin coated microparticles which are incubated with a biotinylated allergenic capture reagent, patient sample and monoclonal anti-human IgE antibody: horseradish peroxidase conjugate. After a final wash, the resulting complex is incubated with the enzyme substrate and a chemiluminescent signal is generated, the magnitude of which is proportional to the concentration of IgE in the patient sample.

The provided document describes the analytical and clinical performance of the NOVEOS Specific IgE (sIgE) Assay for Dermatophagoides farinae (D002), an in vitro diagnostic device. It does not describe a study involving human readers assisting with AI, but rather a laboratory-based immunoassay. Therefore, information related to "Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set," "Adjudication method," and "MRMC comparative effectiveness study" is not applicable for this type of device and study.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is an in vitro diagnostic assay, typical acceptance criteria would involve analytical performance metrics like accuracy (compared to a predicate or clinical diagnosis), precision (reproducibility), linearity, detection limits, and interference. The document presents these results rather than explicit "acceptance criteria" tables. However, we can infer the implicit criteria from the reported data.

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

• Accuracy (vs. Predicate): 234 samples (including 97 skin prick test positive samples). The provenance of these samples (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not explicitly stated, but they are implied to be clinical samples used for comparison.
• Clinical Performance: 187 samples (75 with allergic status confirmed by skin-prick testing and clinical history, 112 from healthy, non-atopic donors with no reported allergy). The provenance is not explicitly stated.
• Imprecision/Reproducibility:
  • Repeatability and within-laboratory precision: Samples assayed in duplicate in 2 runs per day for 20 days on 3 NOVEOS Immunoassay Analyzers (total of 80 replicates per sample evaluated for 7 different samples/controls).
  • Lot-to-lot imprecision: 8 serum samples (3 negative, 5 positive) tested in 2 replicates per run, 2 runs per day for 20 days (total of 240 replicates per sample) using 3 different reagent lots.
  • Site-to-site reproducibility: 4 patient pools and 2 controls tested in 5 replicates per run, 1 run per day for 5 days on 1 analyzer at each of 3 sites (total of 75 replicates per sample).
• Linearity: Samples with IgE concentrations from 0.04 to 126 kU/L were used. Number of distinct samples or dilution points not specified, but the range is.
• Interference & Cross-Reactivity: Not directly stated, but typically involves a panel of samples spiked with interfering substances or related analytes.
• Detection Limit: 90 replicates of analyte-free samples and 300 replicates of low IgE samples for LoB/LoD. For LoQ, low analyte samples assayed in replicates of five in 2 runs per day for 5 days (50 replicates total).
• Reference Range: 128 apparently healthy subjects.

The studies are described as analytical and clinical performance studies, implying they are a form of prospective data collection for regulatory submission. The country of origin for the data is not specified.

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

Not applicable for this in vitro diagnostic assay. The ground truth for clinical performance was established by "skin-prick testing and clinical history" for allergic status and "healthy, non-atopic donors with no reported allergy" for non-allergic status. These data are typically generated by allergists or clinicians, but the number and qualifications of those individuals are not specified.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This is not an image-based diagnosis or a study requiring human readers to adjudicate results. The device's results are quantitative and compared against established methods or clinical status.

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

No, this was not an MRMC study. This device is an automated laboratory immunoassay for quantitative measurement of IgE, not an AI assisting human readers with interpreting images or other data. Therefore, the concept of "effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance" is not relevant here.

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

Yes, the studies presented are all standalone performance evaluations of the NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay system. It is an automated in vitro diagnostic device, and its performance is assessed intrinsically, independent of human interpretive assistance during the measurement process. Human involvement occurs in sample collection and result interpretation in clinical context, but not in assisting the device's measurement.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Accuracy (vs. Predicate): The "ground truth" was established by comparison with a legally marketed predicate device (ImmunoCAP d2) using a consistent cutoff value (0.35 kU/L).
• For Clinical Performance: The "ground truth" for allergic status was based on clinical diagnosis confirmed by skin-prick testing and clinical history for the allergic group, and "healthy, non-atopic donors with no reported allergy" for the non-atopic group. This represents a form of outcomes data/clinical findings consensus.
• For Analytical Performance (Precision, Linearity, Detection Limits, Interference, Cross-Reactivity): Ground truth is typically established by reference methods, gravimetric dilutions, or known concentrations of analytes/interferents. These are standard laboratory practices for validating assay performance.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of an machine learning or AI algorithm. This device is a quantitative immunoassay, not a machine learning model that needs training on data in the same way. Its parameters and calibration are established through standard assay development and validation protocols, which involve titrations, optimization, and establishment of calibration curves during the manufacturing process.

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

As explained above, the concept of a "training set" and associated "ground truth" for an AI model is not directly applicable to this traditional immunoassay device. The device's operational characteristics (e.g., calibration curve, reagent concentrations, reaction times) are determined through laboratory development and optimization, rather than machine learning training on a distinct dataset with "ground truth labels". The reference standard used for calibration is the "World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) 11/234," which serves as the traceability standard for quantitative measurements.

Ask a specific question about this device

NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer: The NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer is an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay analyzer for measurement of analyte concentration in human specimens. It is intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the clinical laboratory.
NOVEOS™ Specific IgE (sIgE) Assay: The NOVEOS™ Specific IgE Assay is an in vitro quantitative assay for the measurement of allergen specific IgE in human serum. NOVEOS™ Specific IgE Assay is to be used with the NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer. It is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic disorders in conjunction with other clinical findings and is to be used in clinical laboratories.

The NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer is a high-throughput, highly automated immunoassay platform that employs magnetic microbeads as the solid phase. The immunoassay reaction takes place in individual reaction chambers in the reaction rotor, with other rotors containing patient samples and reagents. Liquids are moved by robotic pipettors. The reaction is quantitated by a combination of chemiluminescence and fluorescence measurements compared to a calibration curve, all performed by the analyzer with the NOVEOS software.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the NOVEOS™ Specific IgE (sIgE) Assay and NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer, specifically for the House Dust Mite D001 allergen. The information provided outlines the device's technical specifications and a study demonstrating its performance compared to a predicate device and clinical diagnosis.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding performance targets for each metric. However, it presents various performance metrics and their measured values. For the purpose of this request, we will infer the implicitly accepted performance based on the presented results and the fact that the device received FDA clearance.

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

• Precision Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" in the context of clinical validation, but for precision determination:
  • Quantitative Samples: 8 samples were used.
  • Replicates: 80 replicates per sample (duplicate replicates, 2 runs/day for 20 days).
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).
• Detection Limits (LoB, LoD, LoQ) Test Set:
  • LoB: 60 replicates of analyte-free samples.
  • LoD: 300 replicates of low IgE samples.
  • LoQ: A panel of low analyte samples, 80 replicates per sample (duplicate replicates, 2 runs/day for 20 days).
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).
• Linearity Test Set:
  • Samples: Dilutions of D001 specific IgE samples. Number of distinct samples used for the dilutions not explicitly stated, but covers a concentration range of 0.03 to 133 kU/L.
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).
• Predicate Device Comparison Test Set:
  • Sample Size: 234 clinical samples.
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).
• Clinical Performance Study Test Set:
  • Sample Size: n=236 samples from patients.
  • Sub-groups: 117 samples identified as allergic positive (atopic), 119 samples from apparently healthy, non-atopic subjects.
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).

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

The document does not mention the use of experts in establishing the ground truth for any of the quantitative performance studies (precision, detection limits, linearity).

For the clinical performance study, the "allergic status" (atopic vs. non-atopic) was established as ground truth.

• The status of 117 samples identified as allergic positive (atopic) was confirmed by skin-prick testing.
• The other 119 samples were from "apparently healthy, non-atopic subjects with no reported allergy."
• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The skin-prick testing implies evaluation by a clinician, likely an allergist, but no details are provided about the number or qualifications of the personnel performing or interpreting these tests.

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

There is no mention of any adjudication method for the test sets. The ground truth for the comparison study is the output of the predicate ImmunoCAP system, and for the clinical study, it's based on skin-prick testing and reported allergy status. This is not a human-reader based AI study, so standard adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) would not apply.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an automated in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool that involves human readers.

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

Yes, the device (NOVEOS™ Specific IgE Assay on the NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer) operates in a standalone manner without human intervention for the assay's execution and result generation. The performance data presented (precision, linearity, detection limits, agreement with predicate, and clinical performance) are intrinsic to the device's automated function.

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

• For comparison to predicate device: The ground truth was implicitly the results obtained from the Phadia ImmunoCAP system, which is the legally marketed predicate device. This serves as a reference for substantial equivalence.
• For clinical performance study: The ground truth for individual patient samples was their clinical allergic status, determined by a combination of skin-prick testing confirmation for atopic individuals and reported non-allergic status for non-atopic subjects. This is a form of clinical outcomes/diagnosis data.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithm development. This is an immunoassay system, and its development typically involves extensive analytical validation (precision, linearity, etc.) and clinical validation, rather than a distinct "training set" as understood in AI/ML. The development of such assays often involves optimization stages to establish reagents and protocols, but this isn't typically referred to as a "training set" in the same way as for AI.

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

As there's no mention of a "training set" in the AI/ML sense, this question is not directly applicable. For the development of the assay (which could be analogized to training, though not in the AI sense), the ground truth for calibrators and controls would be established through a rigorous process of standardization and traceability, often to international reference materials (e.g., WHO reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) 11/234, as mentioned for the standard curve traceability).

Ask a specific question about this device

The HY • TEC™ Specific and Total IgE EIA System is an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) method for the quantitative determination of allergen-specific and/or total IgE concentrations in human serum. The assay is to be used with the HY . TECTM 288 instrument for in-vitro diagnostic use. Measurement of specific allergen antibodies and total IgE may aid in the diagnosis of asthma, allergies and other pulmonary disorders.

The HY . TEC 288 Automated EIA instrument is a fully-automated system, which performs sample dilution and pipetting, incubation, washing, reading and data analysis and prints reports. The new modified MCS (Modified Classification System) Specific/Total IgE assay includes the current set of five calibrators (100, 17.5, 3.5, 0.70 and 0.35 IU/mL) and a new zero calibrator.

The HY . TEC allergy system is standardized using anti-IgE discs and reference sera calibrated against WHO 2nd IRP 75/502 and offers a broad menu of specific allergens. The HY · TEC reagents have been optimized to provide a fast, sensitive sandwich immunoassay with a dynamic range from 0.05 to 100 IU/mL. An allergen-coated paper disc is incubated with a serum sample. Non-specific proteins are removed by washing and the disc is incubated with enzyme-labeled monoclonal anti human IgE conjugate. Following a second wash, substrate color is developed. The results are read spectrophotometrically against a calibration curve; results are reported in both IU/mL and Classes. The HY . TEC MCS Specific/Total IgE assay requires only three hours of total incubation time and completes assay runs within six hours for the maximum assay size of 288 tests.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the HY.TEC™ Automated EIA System for Total IgE and Specific IgE. It describes the device and its intended use, and states that it is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared device. However, it does not include a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria with performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement as requested.

The document states: "Assay performance, including correlation with the predicate, analytical sensitivity, limit of detection, intra and inter assay precision, and dilution linearity demonstrate the acceptability of the zero calibrator." This sentence broadly mentions performance aspects but does not provide the acceptance criteria or reported performance values.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about the study design in detail based solely on the provided text.

Here's an assessment based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Sample size for test set: Not specified in the provided document.
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective): Not specified in the provided document.

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

• This device is an in-vitro diagnostic system for laboratory use. The "ground truth" in this context would typically be established through reference methods or clinical diagnosis, not by experts adjudicating images or cases in the way described for AI/imaging devices. No information on experts or their qualifications is provided, as it's not directly relevant to this type of device's validation as presented.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable as this is an in-vitro diagnostic device and its performance is typically assessed through analytical validation (e.g., measuring known concentrations, comparing to a predicate device). No adjudication method for a "test set" 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:

• No. This is an in-vitro diagnostic system, not an AI or imaging device involving human readers or interpretation of complex cases. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI-assistance effect size is not applicable and not mentioned.

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

• The device described is an "Automated EIA System." Its inherent function is standalone (without human intervention once initiated) for sample processing, dilution, incubation, washing, reading, and data analysis. However, "standalone" in the context of AI performance studies usually refers to an AI algorithm's performance without a human in the diagnostic loop. This document doesn't describe AI or machine learning algorithms; it describes an automated laboratory instrument with chemical reactions. The performance validation would be on the instrument's analytical capabilities, which is inherently "standalone" in its operation.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For an in-vitro diagnostic device like this, ground truth ("truth") is established by:
  • Referenced Calibrators/Standards: The device is standardized using "anti-IgE discs and reference sera calibrated against WHO 2nd IRP 75/502." This serves as a primary form of ground truth for calibrating the system.
  • Comparison to predicate device: The document mentions "correlation with the predicate" as part of the assay performance evaluation, implying the predicate device's results serve as a comparative standard.
  • Known concentrations/samples: Analytical sensitivity, limit of detection, precision, and linearity studies usually involve testing samples with known concentrations of the analyte.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device is an automated instrument for performing immunoassays, not an AI model that requires a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The "training" would refer to calibrating the instrument using reference materials (as mentioned in point 7).

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

• As above, not applicable in the typical machine learning sense. The instrument is calibrated using reference sera calibrated against WHO 2nd IRP 75/502. This international standard establishes the "ground truth" for the calibrators used by the system.

Ask a specific question about this device

The HY . TECTM Extended Specific IgE EIA, MCS Assay Using The Tecan Freedom EVO® RSP 200 is an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) method for the quantitative determination of allergen-specific IgE concentrations in human serum. The assay system is for in-vitro diagnostic use. Measurement of specific allergen antibodies may aid in the diagnosis of asthma, allergies, and other pulmonary disorders.

The EVO RSP 200 Automated EIA instrument is a fully-automated system, which performs sample dilution and pipetting, incubation, washing, reading and data analysis and prints reports. The EVO RSP 200 Automated EIA System for Specific IgE performs the same functions as the HY . TEC 480 Automated EIA System. The specific IgE assay for both systems, the HY .TEC 480 and the EVO RSP 200, is the same (utilizes same reagents and procedures) except for the following: A zero calibrator is being added to the current set of five calibrators (0.35, 0.7, 3.5, 17.5 and 100 IU/mL) for the EVO Specific IgE assay. The incubation times and temperatures have been changed. The HY . TEC 480 and EVO RSP 200 allergy systems are standardized using anti-IgE discs and reference sera calibrated against WHO 2nd IRP 75/502 and offers a broad menu of specific allergens. An allergen-coated paper disc is incubated with a serum sample. Non-specific proteins are removed by washing and the disc is incubated with enzyme-labeled monoclonal anti human IgE conjugate. Following a second wash, substrate color is developed. The results are read spectrophotometrically against a calibration curve; results are reported in both IU/mL and Classes.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device called "The HY•TEC™ Extended Specific IgE EIA, MCS Assay Using The Tecan Freedom EVO® RSP 200". This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and outlines the intended use and a brief comparison.

Unfortunately, the input document does not provide explicit acceptance criteria or detailed results of a study to demonstrate the device meets these criteria. Instead, it states that "Validation of software, instrument functions and assay performance, including correlation with the predicate, intra and inter assay precision, limits of detection and quantitation, and dilution linearity demonstrate the acceptability of the EVO RSP 200." However, it does not present the specific acceptance thresholds for these performance metrics or the actual reported values.

Therefore, I cannot populate most of the requested sections accurately based on the provided text. I will address the points that can be inferred or explicitly stated.

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document states that these metrics were validated and demonstrated acceptability, but it does not specify the quantitative acceptance criteria or the actual performance values obtained.

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

The document does not specify the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It generally refers to "validation of software, instrument functions and assay performance."

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

This information is not provided in the document. The type of device (an in-vitro diagnostic system for quantitative determination of allergen-specific IgE) typically relies on analytical performance studies rather than expert-derived ground truth from images or clinical assessments in the way, for example, a radiology AI would.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable and not provided as the device is an in-vitro diagnostic assay, not a system requiring human expert adjudication for its primary performance evaluation.

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 relevant for imaging devices where human readers interpret results, often with and without AI assistance. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic instrument for quantitative measurement of IgE.

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

This device is an in-vitro diagnostic instrument, not an algorithm that operates standalone in a clinical context. Its "standalone" performance would be its analytical performance (precision, accuracy, LoD, LoQ, linearity), which were generally stated to have been validated, but specific study details are not provided. The device itself is "fully-automated" for its specified functions.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For this type of in-vitro diagnostic device, the "ground truth" for analytical performance studies would typically be established through:

• Reference materials/standards: Calibrators (e.g., WHO 2nd IRP 75/502) and controls with known IgE concentrations.
• Comparison to a gold standard method or predicate device: As indicated by "correlation with the predicate" in the document.

The document mentions that the system is "standardized using anti-IgE discs and reference sera calibrated against WHO 2nd IRP 75/502." This suggests the basis for quantitative accuracy.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide any information regarding a "training set" or its sample size. This is consistent with an in-vitro diagnostic assay validation rather than a machine learning model development.

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

This is not applicable as the document does not describe a training set in the context of machine learning. The device's "training" in a broad sense would relate to its calibration and standardization, as mentioned with the WHO reference standard.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay method for the semi-quantitative determination of specific IgG autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTg) in human serum.

Uses:

The results of the anti-fTg assay can be used as an aid in the diagnosis of Coeliac Disease. Levels of these autoantibodies are one indicator in a multi-factorial diagnostic regime.

In addition to the manual assay protocol, this device has been validated for use with the HYCOR HY.TEC automated EIA instrument.

For in vitro diagnostic use only.

Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay method for the semi-quantitative determination of specific IgG autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTg) in human serum.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the AUTOSTAT™ II Anti-Tissue Transglutaminase IgG ELISA device, focusing on acceptance criteria and study data:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA, which primarily confirms substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) or detailed reported device performance metrics (e.g., actual sensitivity and specificity percentages) from internal validation studies.

The "Indications For Use" section describes the intended use of the device, which implicitly defines the performance characteristics it must demonstrate to be deemed safe and effective.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Important Note: The FDA's 510(k) clearance process focuses on substantial equivalence. Detailed performance data, including specific sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and precision with corresponding statistical analysis, would have been submitted by the manufacturer in their 510(k) application. This document is the outcome of that review, not the detailed performance report itself. Therefore, the specific numerical performance metrics are not available in this particular FDA letter.

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

• Not specified in this document. The FDA letter does not include details on the sample size used for validation studies.
• Data Provenance: Not specified in this document. The country of origin for the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective is not mentioned.

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

• Not specified in this document. The FDA letter does not detail the methodologies for establishing ground truth in the manufacturer's studies.

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

• Not specified in this document. The document does not provide details on how discrepancies in ground truth establishment were resolved.

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

• Not applicable. This device is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), which is a laboratory test, not an imaging device or AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human "readers" or "interpreters" in the context of an MRMC study.

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

• Partially applicable, but not explicitly detailed as "standalone AI performance." As an ELISA, the device's performance is inherently "standalone" in the sense that the test results are generated by the assay itself without real-time human interpretation in the way an imaging AI works. The document states it's validated for use with an automated EIA instrument, suggesting it operates without direct human intervention once initiated. However, the exact performance metrics of this "standalone" (algorithm-only) aspect are not provided in this letter.

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

• Not specified in this document. For a diagnostic test like this, ground truth for Coeliac Disease diagnosis would typically involve a combination of clinical assessment, endoscopy with duodenal biopsy showing characteristic pathology, and resolution of symptoms on a gluten-free diet. The specific methods used in the manufacturer's studies are not detailed here.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not specified. ELISA devices are not "trained" in the same way machine learning models are. They are biochemical assays developed and optimized based on chemical principles and validation studies, rather than using a "training set" to learn patterns.

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

• Not applicable. As explained above, the concept of a "training set" and associated ground truth establishment for AI/ML purposes does not directly apply to the development of an ELISA assay. The development involves optimization of reagents, reaction conditions, and calibration, which are different processes.

In summary: The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter confirms the device's substantial equivalence and intended use. However, it does not contain the detailed technical specifications or study results (like sample sizes, expert qualifications, specific performance metrics, or ground truth methodologies) that would typically be found in the manufacturer's full 510(k) submission or a peer-reviewed publication.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay method for the scmi-quantitative determination specific IgA autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTg) in human securi.

Uses:

The results of the anti-tTg assay can be used as an aid in the diagnosis of auto-immun diseases associated with elevated levels of anti-tTg antibodies including Coeliac Discuss a Levels of these autoantibodies are one indicator in a multi-factorial diagnostic regine.

This device can be used with the HYCOR HY.TEC automated EIA instrument.

For in vitro diagnostic use only.

Prescription Use (Per 21 CFR 801.109)

Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay method for the scmi-quantitative determination specific IgA autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTg) in human securi.

I am sorry, but based on the limited information provided in the input text, I cannot describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them with the level of detail requested. The provided text is a premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding the "Autostat II Anti-tTg IgA ELISA" device, indicating its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

The document lacks specific details on:

1. Acceptance criteria and reported device performance table: While it mentions the device is "substantially equivalent," it doesn't provide the quantitative or qualitative metrics for this equivalence or what performance targets were set.
2. Sample size and data provenance for the test set: There is no mention of a test set, its size, the country of origin of the data, or whether it was retrospective or prospective.
3. Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth: No information on expert involvement for ground truth establishment is present.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not mentioned.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study: No information on such a study or any effect size related to AI assistance. The device is an ELISA, not an AI-assisted diagnostic.
6. Standalone performance study: While the device itself performs a test, the document doesn't detail a standalone study with specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy).
7. Type of ground truth used: It states the device aids in diagnosing diseases like Celiac Disease based on anti-tTg antibodies, but it does not describe how the ground truth for studying the device's performance was established (e.g., against biopsy, clinical consensus, pathology).
8. Sample size for the training set: Not mentioned. This would typically be relevant for AI/ML devices, which this ELISA is not.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established: Not mentioned.

The document primarily focuses on the regulatory determination of substantial equivalence. To answer your request comprehensively, information from the actual 510(k) submission, including performance studies and detailed methodologies, would be required.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay method for the semi-quantitative determination of specific IgA autoantibodies to cardiolipin in human serum.

Uses:

The results of the anti-cardiolipin assay can be used as an aid in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases associated with elevated levels of anti-cardiolipin antibodies including anti-phospholipid syndrome. Levels of these autoantibodies are one indicator in a multifactorial diagnostic regime.

This device can be used with the HYCOR HY•TEC automated EIA instrument.

For in vitro diagnostic use only.

Prescription use

Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay method for the semi-quantitative determination of specific IgA autoantibodies to cardiolipin in human serum.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding the Autostat™ II Anti-Cardiolipin IgA ELISA device.

Unfortunately, this document does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications.

The letter explicitly 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 indicates that the FDA's decision is based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a detailed presentation and review of a specific clinical performance study with acceptance criteria and ground truth validation for this particular device. The document primarily focuses on regulatory approval based on this equivalence and general controls, not on specific performance data from a new clinical study.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based solely on the text provided. To answer your questions, I would need to review the actual 510(k) submission and its supporting documentation, which would contain the performance data and study details.

Ask a specific question about this device