Search Results

The ImmuGlo HEp-2 Elite IFA is an indirect immunofluorescence antibody test for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) of the IgG isotype in human serum utilizing standard HEp-2 cells and engineered HEp-2 cells as a substrate. The ImmuGlo HEp-2 Elite IFA is intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings.

The ImmuGlo™ HEp-2 Elite IFA is an indirect immunofluorescence antibody test for the qualitative detection of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) of the IgG isotype in human serum utilizing standard HEp-2 cells as a substrate. The HEp-2 Elite sides provided with this kit contain a 1:9 mixture of standard HEp-2 cells and engineered HEp-2 cells with the PSP1 gene knocked out. The engineered HEp-2 cells are able to detect all ANA specificities with the exception of the DF570/AC-2 pattern resulting from autoantibodies associated with PSP2. In DF570 positive reactions standard HEp-2 cells provide a positive reaction while engineered HEp-2 cells do not. The HEp-2 Elite substrate thereby provides additionality to aid in discriminating homogeneous, speckled, and dense fine speckled (DFS70/AC-2) patterns during the screening phase.

The provided text describes the ImmuGlo HEp-2 Elite IFA device, which is an indirect immunofluorescence antibody test for the detection of anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA). It aims to aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study data:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal acceptance criteria in a dedicated section for all tests. However, performance metrics are provided in the "Non-clinical Tests" and "Precision" sections. Based on the "Repeatability" and "Reproducibility" sections, the acceptance criteria for precision studies are implicitly defined.

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

1. Qualitative Agreement (Pos/Neg) Study (vs. Predicate):

   • Sample Size: 591 samples (298 positive, 293 negative by predicate).
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the "Method Comparison" implies these are clinical samples tested against the predicate device. No details on country of origin or retrospective/prospective collection are provided.

2. Pattern Agreement Study:

   • Sample Size: 243 samples with known ANA patterns.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The samples were "randomized." No details on country of origin or retrospective/prospective collection are provided.

3. Repeatability Study:

   • Sample Size: 8 negative and 17 positive samples. Each sample was tested in 6 replicates in 10 runs (over 5 days), resulting in 60 replicates for each sample. Read by 2 operators, total N = 120 per sample series.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified.

4. Reproducibility Study:

   • Sample Size: 10 positive samples with various patterns and intensities. Each sample was tested in triplicate in 10 runs (2 runs/day for 5 days) at 3 different sites, resulting in 90 replicates per sample.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified, other than "three different sites."

5. Clinical Study (Sensitivity/Specificity):

   • Sample Size: 256 ANA-associated disease samples and 497 autoimmune and infectious disease controls. (Total 753 samples, excluding normal human sera and DFS70 suspected samples for these specific calculations).
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin or retrospective/prospective collection. These are referred to as "sets of clinical samples."

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

• Qualitative Agreement Study: Ground truth was established by comparison to a "Predicate" device. No human experts are explicitly mentioned for ground truth.
• Pattern Agreement Study: Three independent evaluators provided reads. The ground truth for the comparison was established by "Consensus (2/3 Readers)." The qualifications of these evaluators are not specified (e.g., if they are expert medical professionals like radiologists or pathologists, or their years of experience).
• Precision (Repeatability and Reproducibility) Studies: The repeatability study mentions "2 operators." The reproducibility study mentions testing at "three different sites" and implies readers/operators at those sites. However, the qualifications of these operators/readers are not specified.
• Clinical Study (Sensitivity/Specificity): The classification of samples into "ANA-associated autoimmune disease" or "control" implies a clinical diagnosis was used as ground truth, likely established by referring clinicians. However, the exact method of ground truth establishment (e.g., based on clinical criteria, pathology, or expert consensus) and the qualifications of those who established it are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Qualitative Agreement (Pos/Neg) Study: The comparison is made against a "Predicate" device. No explicit human adjudication method for the ground truth of the samples themselves is stated; the predicate device's results are used as the reference.
• Pattern Agreement Study: The adjudication method for comparing the Elite device against the predicate was based on "Consensus (2/3 Readers)." This means that for a result to be considered consensus, at least two out of the three independent evaluators had to agree.
• Precision (Repeatability and Reproducibility) Studies: For reproducibility, "consensus pattern agreement" was part of the AQL. This indicates an adjudication process was used, likely involving agreement among multiple readers/operators, but the specific number or method isn't detailed beyond the term "consensus."

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

• Yes, a form of MRMC study was done for pattern agreement. The "Pattern Agreement Study" involved 243 samples and 3 independent evaluators (readers) who were blinded to each other's results and the samples. The data was analyzed by comparing the Elite device vs. the Predicate device based on reader consensus (at least 2 of 3 readers).
• Effect Size of Human Readers Improvement with AI vs. without AI assistance: This information is not applicable as the device (ImmuGlo HEp-2 Elite IFA) is a diagnostic kit read by human operators (microscopists/technologists) and is not described as an AI-powered image analysis tool. The study assesses the agreement between patterns identified using the new device and the predicate by human readers, not the effect of AI assistance on human reader performance.

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

• No, the device described is an "indirect immunofluorescence antibody test kit" (IFA). This is a laboratory diagnostic method that requires human-in-the-loop performance for slide preparation, reading under a fluorescence microscope, and interpretation of patterns and titers. There is no mention of an algorithm-only or AI-driven standalone component in the provided text.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Qualitative Agreement Study: The ground truth for this comparison was the results obtained from the predicate device.
• Pattern Agreement Study: The ground truth for comparison in the pattern study was established by expert consensus among 2 out of 3 independent evaluators.
• Clinical Study (Sensitivity/Specificity): The ground truth was based on a clinical diagnosis of "ANA-associated autoimmune disease" or "control" conditions. This typically reflects real-world clinical outcomes and physician diagnoses, potentially supported by other laboratory and clinical data. There is no mention of pathology or other specific "gold standard" laboratory tests cited as the primary ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document describes performance studies for a diagnostic kit (ImmuGlo HEp-2 Elite IFA). This typically does not involve "training sets" in the context of machine learning or AI models, but rather clinical samples are used for method comparison, precision, and clinical performance evaluation.
• Therefore, a "training set" for an algorithm is not applicable to this device as described. The samples mentioned in the clinical study (753 samples) are test sets for evaluating the performance of the device itself.

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

• As a "training set" in the AI or machine learning sense is not applicable to this device, the method for establishing its ground truth is not relevant here.

Ask a specific question about this device

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of anti-RNA POL III IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of systemic scleroderma) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of anti-RNA POL III IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis (scleroderma) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. This test is performed as a solid phase immunoassay. Microwells are coated with recombinant RNA POLIII antigen. Controls, calibrators and patient sera are incubated in the antigen coated wells to allow specific antibodies present in the RNA POL III antigen. Bound antibodies are detected by adding an enzyme labeled anti-human IgG conjugate. Specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added and the presence of antibodies is detected by a spectrophotometer at 450 nm. Results are expressed in ELISA units per milliliter (EU/ml) and reported as positive or negative.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a formal table format with target performance values. Instead, it presents various performance characteristics and their corresponding results. I will infer the acceptance criteria from the reported performance, implying that these results met the manufacturer's internal criteria for substantial equivalence.

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

• Method Comparison Test Set: 413 samples (52 positive, 361 negative, based on the predicate device).
  • Data Provenance: "well-characterized systemic sclerosis subjects and disease controls." The country of origin is not specified but implicitly North America (given the US FDA submission). Retrospective, as these were "well-characterized" samples.
• Cross-Reactivity Test Set:
  • Systemic Sclerosis (SSc): 281 samples
  • Diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc): 105 samples
  • Limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc): 176 samples
  • Various autoimmune and infectious disease controls, and cancer patients: 549 samples in total across 22 different categories (sample sizes per category detailed in the table, e.g., SLE: 40, Sjögren's: 41, etc.).
  • Data Provenance: Clinical samples. Country of origin not specified. Retrospective, as they were "sets of clinical samples" collected and tested.
• Clinical Study Test Set:
  • 281 systemic sclerosis samples
  • 549 autoimmune and infectious disease controls (the same breakdown as the Cross-Reactivity section).
  • Data Provenance: Clinical samples. Country of origin not specified. Retrospective.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth for any of the test sets. For the "Method Comparison," it refers to "well-characterized systemic sclerosis subjects and disease controls," implying a clinical diagnosis as the ground truth, likely established by medical professionals. For "Cross Reactivity" and "Clinical Study," it refers to "clinical samples" and "autoimmune and infectious disease controls," which implicitly means ground truth was based on established clinical diagnoses.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not explicitly stated. Given that the ground truth for method comparison relied on a predicate device and for cross-reactivity/clinical study on "clinical samples" and "disease controls," it's highly probable that the ground truth was established by clinical diagnosis, which often involves a consensus among treating physicians or established diagnostic criteria rather than a dedicated adjudication process for the purpose of this study.

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:

This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) ELISA test, not an AI-powered image analysis or diagnostic support tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device and was not performed or reported.

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

This device is a standalone in-vitro diagnostic test. Its performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement with predicate, precision, etc.) are all based on its own intrinsic performance, without any human-in-the-loop interpretation impacting these reported analytical and clinical performance characteristics. So, yes, a standalone performance was done for the device itself.

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

• Method Comparison Test Set: The ground truth was based on the performance of a legally marketed predicate device, the INOVA QUANTA Lite™ RNA POL III ELISA, and "well-characterized systemic sclerosis subjects and disease controls," implying clinical diagnosis.
• Cross-Reactivity and Clinical Study Test Sets: The ground truth was based on the clinical diagnosis of the patients from whom the samples were obtained ("Systemic sclerosis," "Systemic lupus erythematosus," "Sjögren's syndrome," etc.), and the characterization of "autoimmune and infectious disease controls." This points to clinical diagnosis (and possibly expert medical consensus) as the ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of device development. Given that this is an ELISA kit, which is a chemical assay, it does not typically involve machine learning algorithms that require distinct training and test sets in the same way an AI-driven device would. The development samples and internal validation studies would likely fall under what could be considered "training" or optimization, but a specific "training set" size is not reported as it would be for an AI model.

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

As mentioned above, a formal "training set" as understood in AI/ML contexts is not directly applicable here. The development and optimization of the ELISA assay would typically involve extensive testing with known positive and negative controls, and clinical samples previously characterized by established diagnostic methods (e.g., other validated tests, clinical diagnosis) to refine the assay parameters (e.g., antibody concentrations, incubation times, cutoff values). This characterization would rely on standard clinical diagnostic practices and existing reference methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

An enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of anti-mitochondria antibodies (AMA) in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of anti-mitochondria IgG antibodies in human serum to aid in the diary cirrhosis (PBC) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

This test is performed as a solid phase immunoassy. Microwells are coated with recombinant Mitochondrial antigen. Controls, calibrators and patient sera are incubated in the antibodies present in the serum to bind to the Mitochondria antigen. Bound antibodies are detected by adding an enzyme labeled anti-human IgG or IgA/JgG/JgM conjugate. Specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added and the presence of antibodies is detected by a color change that is read by a spectrophotometer at 450 nm. Results are expressed in ELISA units per milliliter (EU/ml) and reported as positive or negative.

This test is performed as a solid phase immunoassy. Microwells are coated with recombinant mitochondrial antigen. Controls, calibrators and patient sera are incubated in the antigen coated wells to allow specific antibodies present in the serum to bind to the Mitochondria antigen. Bound antibodies are detected by adding an enzyme labeled anti-human IgG or IgA/gG/lgM conjugate. Specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added and the presence of antibodies is detected by a color change that is read by a spectrophotometer at 450 nm. Results are expressed in ELISA units per milliliter (EU/ml) and reported as positive or negative.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text.

Note: The document describes two devices:

1. ImmuLisa Enhanced™ Anti-Mitochondria IgG Antibody (AMA) ELISA (referred to as "AMA IgG ELISA")
2. ImmuLisa Enhanced™ Anti-Mitochondria IgA/IgG/IgM Antibody (AMA) ELISA (referred to as "AMA IgA/IgG/IgM ELISA")

Since the structure of the provided text details similar studies for both, I will present the information for both devices where available, clearly distinguishing between them. The acceptance criteria themselves are implied from the "Clinical Study" results where clinical sensitivity and specificity are reported.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For ImmuLisa™ Enhanced Anti-Mitochondria IgG Antibody (AMA) ELISA:

For ImmuLisa™ Enhanced Anti-Mitochondria IgA/IgG/IgM Antibody (AMA) ELISA:

Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria values (e.g., "Sensitivity must be >= 80%"). Instead, it presents the results of the clinical study, implying that these achieved performance metrics are acceptable for regulatory clearance.

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

The document describes "Clinical Study" results, which serve as the test set performance.

For both AMA IgG ELISA and AMA IgA/IgG/IgM ELISA:

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • 193 primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) subjects.
  • 898 autoimmune and infectious disease controls.
  • Total: 1091 samples.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study states "Sets of clinical samples were tested," suggesting they are human clinical samples. It does not specify if these were retrospective or prospective, but based on the overall context of a 510(k) summary, they are typically retrospective or collected for the purpose of the study.

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

• The document states that the samples were "well-characterized primary biliary cirrhosis subjects and disease controls." This implies that the diagnosis of PBC and the control conditions were established by medical professionals.
• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. However, the nature of diagnosing primary biliary cirrhosis and various autoimmune/infectious diseases requires specialized medical expertise, likely from clinicians, hepatologists, or infectious disease specialists.

4. Adjudication Method

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated. The phrase "well-characterized" suggests a established diagnosis rather than a specific adjudication process for the study.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The studies presented are "standalone" performance evaluations of the device against established clinical diagnoses.

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

• Yes, standalone performance studies were done. The clinical sensitivity and specificity results are for the device (ELISA kit) itself, used as a diagnostic aid. Human interpretation is involved in reading the spectrophotometer results and applying the cutoff values, but it's not a human-in-the-loop AI system in the typical sense where AI provides an initial read for human verification/modification. The device provides a quantitative or qualitative result (EU/ml, positive/negative) that aids clinical findings.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth used was based on clinical diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) and various autoimmune/infectious diseases for the control group. This is implied by the term "well-characterized primary biliary cirrhosis subjects and disease controls." "Indeterminate samples for these studies were considered positive."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly mention a separate training set or its sample size. The studies described appear to be validation studies of the finished device. For an ELISA kit, development and optimization (analogous to training) are typically part of the manufacturing and design control process, not usually reported as a separate "training set" in the same way as machine learning algorithms. The "Method Comparison" and "Cross Reactivity" sections utilize larger sample sizes, but these are for testing characteristics rather than training.

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

• Since a separate "training set" is not explicitly detailed in the provided text in the context of machine learning, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not described. Device development typically involves internal validation using reference materials and clinically characterized samples, which would serve a similar purpose to a training set for optimizing assay parameters.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of IgA anti-gliadin antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of patients with celiac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings

Enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of IgG anti-gliadin antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of patients with celiac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings

This test is performed as a solid phase immunoassay. Microwells are coated with antigen. Controls, calibrators and patient sera are incubated in the antigen coated wells to allow specific antibodies present in the serum to bind to the gliadin antigen. Bound antibodies are detected by adding an enzyme labeled anti-human IgA or IgG conjugate. Specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added and the presence of antibodies is detected by a color change that is read by a spectrophotometer at 450 mm. Results are expressed in ELISA units per milliliter (EU/ml) and reported as positive or negative.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study findings for the Immulisa Enhanced Gliadin IgA Antibody ELISA and Immulisa Enhanced Gliadin IgG Antibody ELISA, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes several non-clinical and clinical tests. However, explicit "acceptance criteria" in the form of pre-defined thresholds for performance metrics (like minimum sensitivity/specificity) are not explicitly stated within the provided text for the new Immulisa Enhanced Gliadin assays. Instead, the study presents the performance of the new devices in comparison to existing predicate devices and against a set of characterized clinical samples. The "acceptance" is implied by demonstrating substantial equivalence and satisfactory performance in these various tests.

I've organized the reported performance for the new devices based on the test sections:

Table 1: Device Performance Summary

Study Details

Here's the detailed information regarding the studies:

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

   • Method Comparison (Vs Predicate):
     • IgA test set: 400 samples (109 Positive, 291 Negative by predicate).
     • IgG test set: 459 samples (205 Positive, 254 Negative by predicate).
     • These samples appear to be clinical samples ("well-characterized CD and DH subjects and disease controls").
     • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but based on the overall document (Immco Diagnostics, Buffalo, NY), it's likely from the US or procured for use in the US. The terms "well-characterized" suggest retrospective collection.
   • Cross-Reactivity Study:
     • Test set: 456 sera from individuals with other potentially cross-reactive autoimmune and infectious disorders.
     • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but likely retrospective clinical samples.
   • Clinical Study:
     • Test set: 250 celiac disease samples, 45 dermatitis herpetiformis samples, and 456 autoimmune and infectious disease controls. IgA deficient CD patients were excluded from these calculations.
     • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but likely retrospective clinical samples.

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

   • The document implies ground truth was established by "well-characterized CD and DH subjects and disease controls" and "clinical samples." It also directly compares the new device to existing predicate devices.
   • However, the specific number and qualifications of experts (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") used to establish the ultimate ground truth for the patient classifications (celiac, DH, healthy, specific autoimmune diseases) are not mentioned in the provided text. It's typical for such characterization to involve clinical diagnosis based on a combination of endoscopy, biopsy, serology, and clinical presentation, but the specific expert involvement is not detailed.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable / Not specified. The document describes laboratory studies comparing results to predicate devices and clinical diagnoses, rather than human reader interpretation that would require adjudication.

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

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool for human readers. Therefore, this type of study is not relevant.

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

   • Yes, this is a standalone performance study. The device itself is an automated ELISA system. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement, precision, etc.) represent the performance of the assay (the "algorithm"/test process) without human interpretive intervention beyond running the test and reading the output. The interpretation of the ELISA results (positive/negative/borderline) is inherent to the device's design.

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

   • For the "Method Comparison" studies against the predicate devices, the predicate device's result itself acts as a form of "ground truth" for comparison purposes.
   • For the "Clinical Study" and "Cross-Reactivity" studies, the ground truth for celiac disease, dermatitis herpetiformis, and the various autoimmune/infectious diseases was based on the "well-characterized" nature of the samples. This typically implies a clinical diagnosis (likely involving expert consensus from physicians, pathology results from biopsies, and other diagnostic tests). The document does not provide the specific modalities (e.g., gold standard biopsy results for all celiac cases) used for this characterization for each individual sample, but generally, for celiac disease, this would involve small intestinal biopsy as a definitive diagnostic tool.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not specified. This document describes the performance of an ELISA assay, which is a biochemical test, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that undergoes "training." The results presented are from validation and clinical evaluation studies of the developed assay.

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

   • Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set, the concept of establishing ground truth for such a set is irrelevant in this context.

Ask a specific question about this device

1. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of β2-GPI IgA antibodies in human serum to aid in diagnosis of autoimmune thrombotic disorders associated with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and APS with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

2. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of β2-GPI IgG antibodies in human serum to aid in diagnosis of autoimmune thrombotic disorders associated with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and APS with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

3. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of β2-GPI IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in diagnosis of autoimmune thrombotic disorders associated with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and APS with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

4. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of β2-GPI IgA, IgG and IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in diagnosis of autoimmune thrombotic disorders associated with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and APS with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

The test is performed as a solid phase immunoassay (ELISA) in B2GP1 coated microwells. Controls, Calibrators and patient serum samples are incubated in the antigen coated microwells to allow antibodies present in the serum to bind. Unbound antibody and other serum proteins are removed by washing the microwells are detected by adding an enzyme labeled anti-human lgA, lgG, lgM or lgA/IgG/IgM conjugate to the microwells. These enzyme conjugated antibodies bind specifically to the human immunoglobulin of the apropriate class. Unbound enzyme-labeled conjugate is removed by washing. Specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added to the presence of antibodies is detected by a color change produced by the conversion of the TMB substrate. The reaction is stopped and the intensity of color change, which is proportional to the concentration of antibody, is read by a spectrophotometer at 450 nm. Results are expressed in ELISA units per milliliter (EU/ml).

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Immulisa Enhanced™ B2GP1 Antibody ELISA devices, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are generally implied by the reported performance in the method comparison study, where the device's agreement with a predicate device is evaluated. The FDA often evaluates substantial equivalence based on such comparisons. Specific pre-defined thresholds for agreement (e.g., >90% overall agreement) are likely part of the internal acceptance criteria, though not explicitly stated as "acceptance criteria" here.

Study Details

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

   • Method Comparison (Test Set for Equivalence):
     • IgA: 328 samples (115 Pos, 213 Neg by predicate)
     • IgG: 338 samples (77 Pos, 261 Neg by predicate)
     • IgM: 355 samples (120 Pos, 235 Neg by predicate)
     • IgA/IgG/IgM: 331 samples (177 Any Pos, 154 All Neg by predicate)
   • Cross-Reactivity (Test Set):
     • Various sample sizes depending on the condition, ranging from 7 to 60 for individual Ig classes, and 7 to 45 for the combined IgA/IgG/IgM assay.
   • Clinical Performance (Test Set):
     • The exact total number of clinical samples for APS, APS with SLE, and SLE is not explicitly stated, but the sensitivity and specificity are provided, implying a sufficient number were tested. The percentages are accompanied by 95% Confidence Intervals.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to be retrospective as they involve testing existing clinical samples and disease controls.

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

   • The document implies that the ground truth for the method comparison study was established using a predicate device (INOVA QUANTA Lite™ ß2 GPI IgA, IgG, IgM and Screen ELISA).
   • For the clinical performance studies, the ground truth for "APS," "APS with SLE," and "SLE" diagnoses would typically be established by clinical diagnostic criteria, likely involving an expert consensus based on patient history, other laboratory tests, and clinical findings, but the number and qualifications of experts are not specified in this document.

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

   • For the method comparison, the predicate device served as the reference standard, so no human adjudication method (like 2+1) is indicated for the test set results.
   • For clinical performance, the ground truth regarding the disease status (APS, SLE, etc.) would be based on established diagnostic criteria, implying a form of clinical consensus and data, but a specific "adjudication method" involving multiple readers for interpreting the device's results is not mentioned.

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

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (ELISA) kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that requires human interpretation of images or complex data where AI might "assist" a human reader. Therefore, this question is not applicable to this type of device.

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

   • Yes, standalone performance was done. The device itself is the standalone "algorithm" (the ELISA assay) that produces a numerical result (EU/ml) or a qualitative (positive/negative) call. The performance metrics (method comparison, sensitivity, specificity, precision, etc.) all represent the standalone performance of the device.

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

   • Method Comparison: The ground truth was based on the results of a legally marketed predicate device (INOVA QUANTA Lite™ ß2 GPI IgA, IgG, IgM and Screen ELISA).
   • Clinical Performance: The ground truth for disease classifications (APS, APS with SLE, SLE) is implied to be based on clinical diagnostic criteria, which typically involves a combination of clinical findings, patient history, and other laboratory tests (similar to expert consensus/outcomes data). The document states "Sensitivity/specificity exclude healthy human blood on the reference laboratory testing with a possible diagnosis of APS or SLE," indicating samples were classified based on their clinical status.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly state a separate "training set" size for algorithm development. For in-vitro diagnostic assays like ELISAs, assay development and analytical validation typically involve iterative testing with various samples, but these are generally referred to as optimization or development samples, not a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning. The studies presented (method comparison, clinical performance, etc.) are essentially validation studies, testing the final, developed assay.

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

   • As no explicit "training set" is mentioned in the context of algorithm development, similar to machine learning models, this question is not directly applicable. The assay's parameters (e.g., cutoffs, analytical ranges) would have been established during product development using samples whose characteristics (e.g., positive, negative, various concentrations) were known, likely through reference methods or clinical diagnosis, but this is a standard part of ELISA development rather than "ground truth establishment for a training set" as understood in AI/ML.

Ask a specific question about this device

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of anti-centromere IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of limited cutanteous systemic sclerosis / CREST in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

An enzyme linked immunoassay (EUSA) for the qualitative detection of anti-centromere IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis / CREST in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

This test is performed as a solid phase immunoassay. Microwells are coated with recombinant purified CENP-A centromere antigens. Controls, calibrators and patient sera are incubated in the antigen coated wells to allow specific antibodies present in the serum to bind to the centromere antibodies are detected by adding an enzyme labeled anti-human lgG conjugate. Specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added and the presence of antibodies is detected by a color change that is read by a spectrophotometer at 450 nm. Results are expressed in ELISA units per milliliter (EU/ml) and reported as positive or negative.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the ImmuLisa™ Enhanced Centromere Antibody ELISA, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a numerical target format (e.g., "sensitivity must be > X%"). Instead, the performance is demonstrated and presented for comparison to the predicate device and in clinical utility. Therefore, the reported performance metrics are presented in the table as the de facto "acceptance criteria" based on the study findings.

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

• Method Comparison Test Set: 407 samples (59 positive, 348 negative by predicate).
• Cross-Reactivity Test Set: 669 specimens from individuals with various autoimmune or infectious diseases.
• Precision Test Set: 7 patient samples, run in duplicate, twice per day for 20 days (n=80 replicates per sample).
• Reproducibility Test Set: Samples ranging from ~20% below cutoff, ~20% above cutoff, and in the moderate positive range. Run in duplicate twice per day for 20 days.
• Limit of Detection Test Set: 60 replicates of blank, 10 replicates each of 6 low-level samples.
• Clinical Test Set: 124 IcSSc/CREST samples and 865 autoimmune and infectious disease controls.

Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the samples or whether they were retrospectively or prospectively collected. "Well-characterized lcSSc / CREST subjects and disease controls" are mentioned for the method comparison, suggesting pre-existing characterized samples. The clinical tests also use "Sets of clinical samples." Without further information, it's difficult to determine the specific provenance or collection method.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test sets. For the method comparison, it refers to "well-characterized lcSSc / CREST subjects and disease controls," which implies clinical diagnosis, but the process of this characterization is not detailed. The "clinical tests" used IcSSc/CREST samples and controls, which would have had prior clinical diagnoses, but the adjudication of these diagnoses for the purpose of the study is not explained.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for establishing the ground truth of the test set samples. The ground truth appears to be based on prior clinical diagnoses or characterization, but the details of how these were confirmed or adjudicated for the study are not provided.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is an immunoassay (ELISA) for detecting antibodies, not an imaging or diagnostic algorithm that human readers would interact with.

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

Yes, this is a standalone performance study. The ImmuLisa™ Enhanced Centromere Antibody ELISA is an in-vitro diagnostic device designed to provide results directly. Its performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, agreement) is assessed independently of direct human intervention in the result interpretation beyond standard laboratory procedures for running the assay and reading the spectrophotometer. The results are expressed quantitatively (EU/ml) and then interpreted qualitatively (positive/negative) based on a defined cutoff.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the test sets (especially for method comparison and clinical performance) appears to be expert consensus / clinical diagnosis.

• For the Method Comparison, samples were "well-characterized lcSSc / CREST subjects and disease controls," implying pre-established clinical diagnoses.
• For Clinical Tests, "IcSSc/CREST samples" and "autoimmune and infectious disease controls" were used, again relying on existing clinical diagnoses as the reference standard.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of device development or algorithm training. This is expected as the ImmuLisa™ is an ELISA kit, which relies on biochemical reactions and calibrated readouts rather than machine learning algorithms that typically require training data. The development of the assay itself would involve optimization and calibration, but this is distinct from "training a model."

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

As no "training set" in the machine learning sense is described or implied for this ELISA kit, the question of how its ground truth was established is not applicable. The development of such diagnostic kits involves rigorous assay design, optimization, and validation against known standards and clinically characterized samples, but this is a different paradigm than algorithm training.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgA antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of theumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgG antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of theumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of theumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgA, IgG and IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of theumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding the ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgA Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgG Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgM Antibody ELISA, and ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgA/IgG/IgM Antibody ELISA. It doesn't contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance metrics.

The document primarily states that the FDA has reviewed the submission and determined that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. It outlines regulatory information such as:

• Trade/Device Name: ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgA Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgG Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgM Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgA/IgG/IgM Antibody ELISA
• Regulation Number: 21 CFR 866.5775
• Regulation Name: Rheumatoid factor immunological test system
• Regulatory Class: Class II
• Product Code: DHR
• Indications for Use: Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgA, IgG, and/or IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
• Type of Use: Prescription Use

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria, device performance, study details (sample sizes, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods), MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, as these details are not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative and semi-quantitative detection of SS-A (Ro) (52 kD and 60 kD) Ig G antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and Sjögren's Syndrome in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests.

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative and semi-quantitative detection of SS-B (La) IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and Sjögren's Syndrome in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests.

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of Sm IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests.

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative and semi-quantitative detection of RNP IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) and Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD) in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) summary only contains the indications for use for several ImmuLisa Enhanced™ antibody ELISA tests.

It does not include information about:

• Acceptance criteria for device performance.
• The study design, sample sizes (training or test sets), data provenance, number or qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, or ground truth establishment.
• Any multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or standalone performance study.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for this specific document.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of IgA and IgG antibodies to synthetic human tissue transglutaminase (1TG) and deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of celiae disease (CD) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA)

The provided text details the FDA's clearance of the ImmuLisa Enhanced Celiac Fusion (tTG/DGP) IgA/IgG Antibody ELISA for aiding in the diagnosis of celiac disease. However, the document does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a study summary that details the device's performance against such criteria. The document is primarily an FDA clearance letter and an "Indications for Use" statement.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given text.

To address the prompt fully, I would need a study report or a different document detailing the performance evaluation of the ImmuLisa Enhanced Celiac Fusion ELISA.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Cardiolipin IgA antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and APS associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Cardiolipin IgG antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and APS associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Cardiolipin IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) and APS associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative : detection of Cardiolipin IgA, IgG and IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) and APS associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

Not Found

The document provided is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for several ImmuLisa Enhanced™ Cardiolipin Antibody (ACA) ELISA tests, indicating they are substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. It does not contain details about acceptance criteria or specific study results related to the performance of these devices.

The typical content of a 510(k) clearance is an affirmation of substantial equivalence, not a detailed report of clinical study outcomes or device performance against pre-defined acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the information requested in your prompt cannot be extracted from this document.

Here's what can be inferred or stated based on the document:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: Not provided in the document. The FDA determined substantial equivalence, but the specific performance of the device or the criteria it met are not detailed here.
• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not provided.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable or provided, as this document is a regulatory clearance, not a study report.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable or provided.
• If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not applicable or provided, as these are in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests, not typically subject to MRMC studies in the same way as imaging algorithms.
• If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. These are lab-based ELISA tests, not AI algorithms.
• The type of ground truth used: Not specified, as the document doesn't detail the studies. For IVDs, ground truth is typically established by reference methods, clinical diagnosis, or patient outcomes.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable or provided, as these are lab-based ELISA tests, not AI algorithms requiring a training set in the machine learning sense.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable or provided.

In summary, this document is a regulatory approval notice and does not contain the detailed scientific study information requested. To find such information, one would typically need to review the 510(k) submission itself (which is often extensive and not publicly available in its entirety) or peer-reviewed publications related to the device.

Ask a specific question about this device