Search Results

The iChem® VELOCITY™ automated urine chemistry system is an in vitro diagnostic device used to automate the urine chemistry analysis profile using iChem® VELOCITY ™ Urine Chemistry Strips. The iChemVELOCITY can be used as a stand-alone system, as well as in an iQ®200 Series system, a configuration given the proprietary name iRICELL™ as it is designed to be hardware and software compatible with iQ200 Series systems. It produces quantitative results for specific gravity; semi-quantitative results for glucose, blood, leukocyte esterase, bilirubin, urobilingen, pH, protein, ketones and ascorbic acid; and qualitative results for nitrites, color and clarity.

iChemVELOCITY strips are intended for use only with the iChem Velocity analyzer. In particular, they are not intended for visual reading. The iChemVELOCITY is not intended to be used as a Point of Care (POC) analyzer.

These measurements are used to aid in the diagnosis of metabolic disorders, kidney function anomalies, urinary tract infections, and liver function. Tests performed using the iChemVELOCITY are intended for clinical laboratory and in vitro diagnostic use only.

The iChemVELOCITY is an automated urine chemistry system performing measurements of defined physical and chemical constituents in urine. The system utilizes iChemVELOCITY urine chemistry test strips which are read in the Strip Reader Module (SRM) by measuring light reflectance, in addition the iChemVELOCITY measures color and clarity using light transmittance through Color/Clarity Module (CCM) and specific gravity using refractive index through Specific Gravity Module (SGM).

The subject of this submission is a design change to the Color/Clarity Module (CCM) of the Color/Clarity/Specific Gravity Module (CGM) subassembly of the iChemVELOCITY. The CCM measures the color and clarity of a urine sample using transmitted and scattered light, incident on a color sensor. An algorithm then converts the output of the different channels of the sensor into semi-quantitative colors. The CCM is being changed to replace end-of-life components (color sensor and scatter light source) and update the color detection algorithm.

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

Device: iChem®VELOCITY™ Automated Urine Chemistry System with redesigned Color/Clarity Module (CCM)

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

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" with numerical targets for the redesigned CCM. Instead, it aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device (iChemVELOCITY with the original CCM). Therefore, the reported performance is compared to the predicate's expected performance, with the implicit criterion being that the redesigned CCM performs at least as well as, or is in agreement with, the predicate.

Here's an interpretation of the performance data in the context of implied acceptance:

Detailed Performance Tables from the Document:

Method Comparison Results Summary (Page 8):

Precision Results Summary (Page 9):

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

• Sample Size: The "Precision Results Summary" table on page 9 indicates that for each color and clarity level category, 240 samples were tested.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. It only states that "Performance testing of the iChemVELOCITY with the redesigned CCM was conducted."

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 used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth. The "Method Comparison" results compare the "Redesigned CCM" to a "Comparator." Given the context of a design change to an existing device, the "Comparator" likely refers to the predicate iChemVELOCITY device with the original CCM. The ground truth, in this case, would be the results generated by the predicate device, not necessarily external human experts.

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

The document does not mention any adjudication method, as the comparison is primarily machine-to-machine (redesigned CCM vs. predicate CCM).

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an automated urine chemistry system, and the study focuses on the performance of the redesigned CCM against its predicate, not on human reader performance or AI assistance.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire study focuses on the performance of the automated iChemVELOCITY system with the redesigned CCM. There is no mention of human-in-the-loop performance evaluation for the color and clarity measurements. The device is intended "for clinical laboratory and in vitro diagnostic use only" and "is not intended for visual reading."

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

The primary ground truth for the performance study is the predicate device's performance. The study aims to show that the redesigned CCM produces results equivalent to the iChemVELOCITY with the original CCM, which was previously cleared.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not specify a separate training set size. The study describes a design change to existing hardware/software components, including an updated algorithm. It's possible that the "new firmware has been written and installed on the CCM's microprocessor... to update the CCM algorithm" implies some form of development/training, but the specifics and size are not provided in this regulatory summary.

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

Since no specific training set and its size are explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not described. If algorithm development involved training, the ground truth would likely have been established using reference methods during the design phase of the original or updated algorithm, but this is not detailed in the provided text. The document focuses on the verification that the redesigned component performs equivalently to the existing, cleared device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The iQ 200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module is an in-vitro diagnostic device used by an appropriately trained laboratory user to examine and count red blood cells and nucleated cells in cerebrospinal fluid, serous fluids and synovial fluid. This module is a capability added to the iQ®200 Urine Analyzer.

The iQ®200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module for use with synovial fluid is an additional use for the iQ®200 Urine Analyzer (K022774 – cleared October 21, 2002). It is used by a competent human observer to examine and count red blood cells and nucleated cells in synovial fluid and is an added body fluid to the previously cleared iQ®200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module cerebrospinal and serous fluids (K050235 -Cleared March 23, 2005).

The provided text describes the 510(k) submission for the iQ® 200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module with the addition of Synovial Fluid capability. It compares the device to a predicate device, the Sysmex® XT-4000i. However, the document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria or the specific performance data against those criteria. It states that "Clinical trial performance data demonstrated that the Synovial Fluid parameter on the iQ®200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module is substantially equivalent to its predicates," and that "Data consisting of Accuracy, Precision, Linearity and Carryover was collected to show performance to the manufacturer's specification for the Body Fluid mode." However, these specific data points and the defined acceptance criteria are not included in the provided text.

Therefore, I can only address parts of your request based on the available information.

Summary of Available Information:

The iQ® 200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module, with the new Synovial Fluid parameter, is an in-vitro diagnostic device used by trained laboratory users to examine and count red blood cells and nucleated cells in synovial fluid (along with cerebrospinal and serous fluids). It operates by adding hyaluronidase to the specimen, preparing two aliquots (one diluted, one lysed), capturing particle images as the sample flows past a microscope objective, ordering images by size into categories, and allowing a human observer to change machine assignments before re-computing and reporting concentrations.

The device's substantial equivalence to the Sysmex® XT-4000i (K091313) is claimed based on similarities in intended use, specimen collection (K2EDTA for synovial fluid), and the fact that both devices collect data on Accuracy, Precision, Linearity, and Carryover to demonstrate performance to manufacturer's specifications.

Information NOT available in the provided text:

• Specific Acceptance Criteria: The document mentions that performance data was collected "to show performance to the manufacturer's specification," but it does not specify what those specifications or acceptance criteria are (e.g., minimum accuracy percentages, precision ranges, linearity R-squared values, etc.).
• Reported Device Performance (against specific criteria): While the document states that clinical trial data "demonstrated substantial equivalence," the actual performance values for Accuracy, Precision, Linearity, and Carryover for the iQ® 200 Synovial Fluid module are not provided.
• Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: The document mentions "clinical trial performance data" and "Data consisting of Accuracy, Precision, Linearity and Carryover was collected," but it does not specify the sample size of the test set, the country of origin of the data, or whether it was retrospective or prospective.
• Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth: This information is not provided.
• Adjudication method for the test set: This information is not provided.
• Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: The document does not describe an MRMC study. The device is used by a "competent human observer" who "may change machine assignments," indicating a human-in-the-loop process, but no comparative effectiveness study with and without AI assistance is described.
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance: The device description clearly states that a "competent human observer may change machine assignments, after which particle concentrations are recomputed and reported," indicating it's not a standalone device. Therefore, standalone performance data would not be applicable or provided.
• Type of ground truth used: Given the context of a cell counter, it's highly likely that ground truth for performance studies would be established by manual microscopy with expert review, but this is not explicitly stated in the document.
• Sample size for the training set: The document does not mention any training set for an algorithm, as it describes a device that captures images and categorizes them, with human oversight. This suggests a more rule-based or image processing approach rather than a machine learning model requiring a distinct training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: As no training set is described, this information is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

IRISpec™ CA/CB/CC is an assayed QC material for monitoring of urine chemistry analytes and devices as listed on the package insert. For in vitro diagnostic (IVD) use only.

IRISpec™ CA/CB/CC controls are based on a synthetic matrix simulating human urine, with preservatives and bovine-sourced biological material for serum albumin, hemoglobin, bilirubin. No human sourced materials.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the IRISpec™ CA/CB/CC device, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Device: IRISpec™ CA/CB/CC

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Matrix Effects: 3 lots of proposed CC control.
  • Closed Vial Stability: 3 lots of proposed CC controls, plus IRISpec™CA and IRISpec™CB as negative controls.
  • Accelerated Temperature Stability: 3 lots of IRISpec™CC controls, plus IRISpec™CA and IRISpec™CB for the 6-month 25°C study.
• Data Provenance: The data is generated internally by the manufacturer (Iris Diagnostics, a Division of IRIS International Inc). The country of origin is implicitly the USA, where the company is located. The studies are prospective in nature, as they involve testing the performance and stability of newly manufactured lots of the device over time and under various conditions.

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

This device is a quality control material, not a diagnostic imaging or interpretive device that requires expert human interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for this type of device is established by its formulation and verified chemical properties. The expected values (e.g., 40 mg/dL ascorbic acid) are determined by the precise manufacturing and spiking process.

Therefore, no external experts in the sense of clinicians or radiologists were used to establish ground truth for this device. The "expertise" involved would be the internal R&D and quality control personnel who formulated the control and verified its chemical composition.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As described above, the ground truth is established by the chemical formulation and direct analytical measurements, not by expert consensus or subjective interpretation requiring adjudication.

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 diagnostic devices where human readers interpret patient data (e.g., medical images) and the AI's impact on their performance is being evaluated. This device is a quality control material and does not involve human readers interpreting diagnostic cases.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study was done

Yes, in a way, this entire submission represents a "standalone" performance study of the quality control material itself. The device (IRISpec™ CA/CB/CC) is designed to have specific chemical properties and stability. The studies evaluate whether the device itself (the "algorithm" in this context refers to the intrinsic properties of the QC material) consistently meets these specifications when tested by an analytical instrument (like the iChem 100 Urine Chemistry Analyzer). There is no "human-in-the-loop" performance being measured for the QC material directly, only its inherent performance as a standard.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is based on chemical formulation and direct analytical measurement (laboratory analysis). The device is formulated to contain a specific concentration of ascorbic acid (40 mg/dL). Its performance is then verified by measuring this concentration using a standardized analytical instrument (iChem 100 Urine Chemistry Analyzer) and comparing it to the expected, formulated value. For negative controls, the ground truth is the absence of the analyte (NEG).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a chemical quality control material, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. Its "knowledge" comes from its chemical formulation and manufacturing process, not from learning from a dataset.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device