Search Results

The IVD Research, Inc. Giardia Fecal Antigen Detection Lateral Flow Kit is a qualitative immunoassay for the detection of Giardia antigens in preserved and unpreserved human fecal specimens. This test is indicated as an aid in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of suspected Giardia infections. For in vitro diagnostic use.

The IVD Research, Inc. Giardia Fecal Antigen Detection Lateral Flow Kit is an immunochromatographic assay for the detection of Giardia lamblia antigen in human fecal samples. The test uses sample wicking to capture Giardia antigen on a discrete test line containing antibodies specific for Giardia antigen. A specimen is added to a dilution tube and mixed with a buffer solution. The mixture is dispensed into the sample well of the device which resolubilizes the Giardia specific mouse monoclonal antibody that has been conjugated to colored microparticles. This solution wicks along a membrane containing capture antibodies bound to the membrane at the Test and Control lines. The Giardia immune complex, if present, reacts with antibody at the Test line. Unbound conjugate not captured at the test line is captured at the Control line containing anti-mouse antibody. If Giardia antigens are present in the fecal sample, two pink-to-purple bands (one at the Sample line and one at the Control line) will appear in the test window. If no Giardia antigen is present, or if the level of antigen is below the detection limit of the assay, only one pink-to-purple band at the Control line will appear in the test window. For the test to be valid, a pink-to-purple band must always appear at the Control line position of the device test window regardless of whether the sample is positive or negative. This Control line indicates that the test is working properly.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for IVD Research, Inc. Giardia Fecal Antigen Detection Lateral Flow Kit

This response will detail the acceptance criteria and the study performance for the Giardia Fecal Antigen Detection Lateral Flow Kit, as extracted from the provided 510(k) Pre-market Notification.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of numerical thresholds for sensitivity and specificity. Instead, the "acceptance" is implied through a comparison to a predicate device and a reference method, aiming for "substantial equivalence" and acceptable clinical performance.

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

• Clinical Performance Study:
  • Sample Size: A total of 210 human fecal specimens were used.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective. The samples were "well-characterized, archived samples" collected in 10% formalin or SAF. They were submitted to an independent laboratory for testing. The country of origin is not specified but is implicitly the US given the FDA submission.
• Unpreserved Fecal Specimens Study:
  • Sample Size: 42 unpreserved fecal samples (15 positive, 27 negative)
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective. These samples were from IVD Research's frozen sample bank, stored at -15℃ or lower. The country of origin is implicitly the US.
• Reproducibility Study:
  • Sample Size: A masked panel of ten samples (number of positive/negative not specified, but 6 positive and 4 negative in the summary table). These were tested repeatedly.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but performed at three sites (one internal, two external), suggesting a multi-center study, likely within the US.
• Predicate Device Comparison Study:
  • Sample Size: Total of 110 samples (49 positive by predicate, 61 negative by predicate).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implies existing samples were used for comparison.

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

• Clinical Performance Study (Reference Method: Microscopy or Direct Immunofluorescence Assay): The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth using microscopy or direct immunofluorescence assay. It states that the specimens were "submitted to an independent laboratory for testing," implying expertise within that laboratory. For the 4 false positives, these were "re-tested using a direct immunofluorescence assay and shown to be positive," suggesting a re-evaluation by an expert or a highly sensitive method.
• Unpreserved Fecal Specimens Study (Reference Method: Giardia lamblia Antigen Detection Microwell ELISA): The ground truth was established by another IVD Research, Inc. product, the Giardia lamblia Antigen Detection Microwell ELISA. No human experts are explicitly mentioned for this ground truth establishment, as it is an automated assay.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method for reconciling discrepancies for the primary clinical performance test set. For the "false positive" samples identified with the Giardia LF test (4 cases), they were "re-tested using a direct immunofluorescence assay and shown to be positive," which implies a secondary, definitive reference method was used to adjudicate these discrepancies and re-classify them as true positives. For the comparison with the predicate device, the agreement was calculated directly, without mention of an adjudication process for discordant results.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was mentioned. The device is a Lateral Flow Kit, which generally involves visual interpretation by a single user, not an AI or human reader improvement scenario.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a Lateral Flow Kit, which is a diagnostic assay that provides a visual result (bands) requiring human interpretation, not an algorithm running independently.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used for Clinical Performance

• Clinical Performance Study: The ground truth was established by "Microscopy or Direct Immunofluorescence Assay." This represents an expert-determined or highly sensitive laboratory reference method, likely considered the gold standard for clinical diagnosis of Giardia at the time.
• Unpreserved Fecal Specimens Study: The ground truth was established by a Giardia lamblia Antigen Detection Microwell ELISA (IVD Research, Inc.). This is a laboratory assay serving as the reference.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a "training set" in the context of an algorithm or machine learning model. The studies described are performance evaluations of the completed device. For IVD diagnostic kits, development typically involves internal analytical studies and optimization, rather than a distinct "training set" as understood in AI/ML.

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

As there is no explicit mention of a "training set" or a machine learning algorithm, this question is not applicable to the provided information.

Ask a specific question about this device

This microwell enzyme-linked immunoabsorbant assay (ELISA) detection kit (C. difficile Toxin A+B ELISA Kit) is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile associated disease. The kit detects C. difficile toxin A and B in human feces using peroxidase as the indicator enzyme. The assay may be read visually or with an ELISA reader. This IVD C. difficile Toxin A+B ELISA Kit is intended to be used with human stools that are fresh, frozen or in Cary Blair transport media in a clinical laboratory use setting. The kit may also be used with IVD Research's Quick'N'Easy fecal dilution device.

C. difficile Toxin A+B Fecal Antigen Detection Microwell ELISA

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA to IVD Research Inc. for their C. difficile Toxin A+B Fecal Antigen Detection Microwell ELISA. It primarily concerns the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence and does not contain detailed information about the acceptance criteria, study design, or performance metrics of the device as requested. The document confirms that the device is cleared for marketing but does not provide the underlying study data to support that clearance.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

This microwell enzyme linked immunoabsorbant assay (ELISA) detection kit is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay for the detection of Cryptosporidium antigen in human feces using peroxidase as the enzyme. The assay may be read visually or with an ELISA reader. This IVD assay is intended to be used with stools that are fresh, frozen or preserved in 10% formalin, SAF or Medical Chemical Corporation's (MCC) Universal fixative. Concentrated samples cannot be used with this IVD.

This microwell enzyme-linked immunoabsorbant assay (ELISA) detection kit (Cryptosporidium ELISA Kit) is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay for the detection of antigen to Cryptosporidium species in human feces using peroxidase as the indicator enzyme. The assay may be read visually or with an ELISA reader. Concentrated fecal samples cannot be used with this immunoassay. Rather, this IVD Cryptosporidium ELISA Kit is intended to be used with human stools that are fresh, frozen or preserved in 10% formalin, SAF or Medical Chemical Corporation's (MCC's) Universal fixative in a clinical laboratory use setting.

This ELISA is an in vitro immunoassay for the qualitative determination of Cryptosporidium species antigen in feces. The ELISA uses a rabbit anti-Cryptosporidium antibody to capture the antigen from the stool supernatant. A second goat anti-Cryptosporidium antibody is then added which sandwiches the captured antigen. This reaction is visualized by the addition of an anti-second antibody conjugated to peroxidase and the chromogen tetramethylbenzidine (TMB). The resulting blue color development indicates the presence of Cryptosporidium species antigens being bound by the anti-Cryptosporidium antibodies.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details for the IVD Research Inc.'s Cryptosporidium Human Fecal Antigen Detection Microwell ELISA Kit, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the performance metrics reported for comparison to the gold standard and the predicate device. For diagnostic tests, this generally includes high sensitivity, specificity, and agreement rates.

Study Details

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

   • Study #1 (Outside Lab): 174 human fecal specimens (formalin, SAF, fresh/frozen and Universal Fixative preserved stools). Data provenance is from "clinical laboratories or in-house collections," making it retrospective. The country of origin is not explicitly stated but is implied to be the US, given the FDA submission.
   • Study #2 (Manufacturer Performed): 44 fresh or fresh/frozen human fecal specimens. Data provenance is from "clinical laboratories or in-house collections," making it retrospective. The country of origin is implied to be the US.

2. 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 (O&P microscopy results or other commercial ELISA results). It only refers to "O&P microscopy" as the "gold standard for parasitology" and "another commercial ELISA."

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

   • The document does not describe any specific adjudication method for the ground truth. It simply states that the results were interpreted against O&P microscopy or another commercial ELISA.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This is an ELISA kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

   • Yes, this is effectively a standalone diagnostic device. The ELISA kit itself provides the qualitative determination. While a human reads the results (visually or with an ELISA reader), the performance metrics reported are for the kit's ability to detect the antigen, independent of human interpretive variability beyond simply reading a color change or optical density.

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

   • For Study #1, the ground truth was O&P (Ova and Parasite) microscopy, considered the "gold standard for parasitology."
   • For Study #2, the ground truth was O&P microscopy and/or another commercial ELISA.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithm development. This refers to an ELISA kit, not an AI model. The studies described are validation (test) sets.

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

   • Given that this is an immunoassay kit and not an AI/machine learning device, there isn't a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "ground truth" for the test sets was established by O&P microscopy or a commercial ELISA, as described above.

Ask a specific question about this device

This direct fluorescent antigen (DFA) detection kit is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay for the detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia Cysts in human feces using fluorescent microscopic visualization. This IVD assay is intended to be used with stools preserved in 10% formalin, SAF or Medical Chemical Corporation's (MCC's) Universal fixative. Such samples may be concentrated or unconcentrated.

This IVD Research, Inc. Cryptosporidium/Giardia Direct Fluorescent Antigen Detection Kit (DFA Assay) is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) fluorescent immunoassay for the qualitative determination of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts in stool feces. This assay may be used with stool samples that are preserved in 10% formalin, SAF, or Medical Chemical Corporation's (MCC's) Universal Fixative.

This DFA Assay corresponds to FDA Classification Name: Entamoeba Histolytica Serological Reagent, a class II (non-exempt) Device, within the Microbiology Classification Panel, having FDA Reg. Citation Number: 21 CFR 866.3220, and FDA Product Codes: MHI and MHJ, and, as such, utilizes the principle of direct immunofluorescence microscopy. The conjugate contains a mixture of FITC-labeled monoclonal antibodies (derived from hybridized mouse B-cells) directed against Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts, which, if present, are affixed to a treated slide (provided). The slide with sample material is then rinsed with wash solution to remove unbound conjugate and debris, and air-dried. The prepared slide is then examined using a fluorescent microscope, looking for an apple-green color and the characteristic morphology of the Cryptosporidium oocysts and the Giardia cysts.

The IVD Research, Inc.'s Cryptosporidium/Giardia Direct Fluorescent Antigen (DFA) Detection Kit is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) fluorescent immunoassay for the qualitative determination of Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts in stool feces.

Here's an analysis of the provided information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the desire to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the gold standard (O&P microscopy) and the predicate device, Meridian Diagnostic's Merifiuor™ Cryptosporidium/Giardia Direct Fluorescent Antigen Detection Kit, with "equivalent sensitivity and specificity." While explicit numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "sensitivity must be >90%") are not stated, the study results consistently report 100% or near 100% sensitivity and specificity with narrow 95% Confidence Intervals.

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

• Study #1: 170 stools (145 human, 25 bovine). Unconcentrated.
• Study #2: 53 unconcentrated stools.
• Study #3: 74 formalin and SAF preserved stools.
• Study #4: 69 formalin and SAF preserved stools (used for predicate device comparison).
• Data Provenance: The document explicitly states, "Unless otherwise indicated, all fecal samples are derived from humans." The inclusion of 25 bovine stools in Study #1 indicates a mix of human and non-human samples in that specific study; other studies imply human origin. The data is retrospective, as it compares the new DFA assay against existing O&P microscopy results or a predicate device. The country of origin of the data is not specified.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their qualifications. However, the ground truth for Studies #1, #2, and #3 was established using "O&P microscopy," which is a standard parasitological examination typically performed by trained medical technologists or clinical microbiologists with expertise in identifying parasites.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). It implies that the O&P microscopy results (the "Micro +" and "Micro -" columns in the tables) were considered the definitive ground truth against which the DFA assay was compared. There is no mention of discrepancies being adjudicated.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of Human Readers Improving with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a diagnostic kit (DFA assay) for microscopic visualization, not an AI-powered image analysis tool. Therefore, the concept of human readers improving with AI assistance does not apply here.

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

Yes, the studies presented (Studies #1, #2, and #3) represent standalone performance of the IVD Research DFA Assay. The results of the DFA assay were directly compared to O&P microscopy (the ground truth) without human interpretation factors other than the inherent microscopic examination of the DFA slides. Effectively, the "algorithm" here is the DFA assay methodology itself, and its performance is evaluated directly.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for Studies #1, #2, and #3 was expert consensus via O&P microscopy (Ova and Parasite microscopy). This is considered the "gold standard for parasitology" as stated in the document. For Study #4, the ground truth was the results obtained from the predicate device.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithm development. This is a traditional IVD kit validation, not an AI/ML device. The studies described are performance validation studies for the finished product. Therefore, there is no specified training set size for an algorithm.

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

Since there is no explicit training set in the context of an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not applicable. The device relies on chemical reactions and fluorescent microscopy, not machine learning.

Ask a specific question about this device

This ELISA is an in vitro immunoassay for the qualitative determination of Giardia antigen in feces.

It is a double antibody (sandwich) ELISA using an anti-Giardia antibody to capture the antigen from the stool supernatant. A second antibody is then added which sandwiches the captured antigen. This reaction is visualized by the addition of an anti-second antibody conjugated to peroxidase and the chromogen tetramethylbenzidine (TMB). The resulting blue color development indicates the presence of Giardia antigens being bound by the anti-Giardia antibodies.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Giardia Antigen Detection Microwell ELISA Assay. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for testing/training, ground truth establishment, or human reader effectiveness studies.

The provided text is purely an FDA clearance letter and an "Indication For Use" statement. It does not include a study description with the requested details. Therefore, I cannot extract the information to complete the table or answer the questions.

Ask a specific question about this device