Search Results

For the quantitative determination of fibrinogen, based on the Clauss method, in human citrated plasma on IL Coagulation Systems.

Several congenital abnormalities of fibrinogen result in impaired conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin during blood coagulation. Fibrinogen is also a useful marker in the evaluation of several disease states including disseminated intravascular coagulation, liver disease, inflammatory diseases and malignancy. High levels of fibrinogen are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Increased levels are also found during pregnancy and oral contraceptive use, while reduced levels are found during thrombolytic therapy.

The HemosIL Fibrinogen-C kit and HemosIL Fibrinogen-C XL kit use an excess of thrombin to convert fibrinogen to fibrin in diluted plasma. At high thrombin and low fibrinogen concentration, the rate of reaction is a function of fibrinogen concentration.

This document, an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for HemosIL Fibrinogen-C and HemosIL Fibrinogen-C XL, does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria.

The 510(k) summary clearly states:

• Reason for Submission: "This Special 510(k) is being submitted to remove the reconstituted reagent frozen stability claim of 1 month at -20°C in the original vial for HemosIL Fibrinogen-C and HemosIL Fibrinogen-C XL."
• Data Requirement: "No new performance data are needed to remove the reconstituted reagent frozen stability claim."
• No new performance claims: "Changes to labeled performance claims, except to remove the reconstituted reagent frozen stability claim from the Instructions for Use and add 'Do not freeze reconstituted reagent.'"

Therefore, the document explicitly states that no new performance data or studies were required or submitted for this particular 510(k) clearance. The clearance is based on a minor labeling change related to reagent stability, not on new performance validation.

To provide the information you requested (acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, ground truth, etc.), you would need a different type of submission document, such as an original 510(k) application or a PMA, where initial and comprehensive performance validation studies are typically included.

Ask a specific question about this device

HemosIL CL HIT-IgG(PF4-H) is a qualitative, fully automated, chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) for the detection of IgG antibodies that react with Platelet Factor 4 (PF4) when complexed to heparin. The assay is for use in human 3.2% citrated plasma on the ACL TOP 970 CL in a laboratory setting.

The result provided by the assay should be interpreted as either positive or negative based on the assay cut-off (1.00 U/mL). The positive or negative result aids in determining the risk for heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) when used in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

Anti-PF4/Heparin antibodies are commonly found in patients with HIT. For use in adult population suspected of HIT. Not for use in isolation to exclude HIT.

For prescription use only.

HemosIL CL HIT-IgG(PF4-H) assay is a chemiluminescent two-step immunoassay consisting of magnetic particles coated with PF4 complexed to polyvinyl sulfonate (PVS) which capture, if present, PF4/H antibodies from the sample. After incubation, magnetic separation, and a wash step, a tracer consisting of an isoluminol-labeled anti-human IgG antibody is added and may bind with the captured PF4/H IgG on the particles. After a second incubation, magnetic separation, and a wash step, reagents that trigger the luminescent reaction are added, and the emitted light is measured as relative light units (RLUs) by the ACL TOP 970 CL optical system. The RLUs are directly proportional to the PF4/H IgG concentration in the sample.

The HemosIL CL HIT-IgG(PF4-H) assay utilizes a 4 Parameter Logistic Curve fit (4PLC) data reduction method to generate a Master Curve. The Master Curve is predefined and lot dependent and it is stored in the instrument through the cartridge barcode. With the measurement of calibrators, the predefined Master Curve is transformed to a new, instrument specific 4PLC Working Curve. The concentration values of the calibrators are included in the reagent kit calibrator value sheet 2D barcode.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the HemosIL CL HIT-IgG(PF4-H) device, based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Precision Study: 5 plasma samples and 2 levels of controls. Tested over 20 days.
• Reproducibility Study: 6 plasma samples. Tested across 3 external sites, twice per day over 5 days with 3 replicates.
• Analytical Sensitivity (LoD): Not explicitly stated, but assessed using "three different lots" of reagent cartridges.
• Analytical Specificity: Not explicitly stated, but involved testing with various interfering substances and 24 citrated plasma samples from APS patients.
• Normal Reference Range Study: 132 Heparin-Exposed, Non-HIT Suspected Patients and 122 Healthy Donors.
• Cut-Off Validation Study (vs. SRA): 91 citrated plasma samples (45 SRA positive, 46 SRA negative).
• Method Comparison Study (vs. Predicate): 341 samples from HIT-suspected patients.

Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the patient data. It is implied to be retrospective as the samples were "from HIT-suspected patients" or "patients diagnosed with Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS)", suggesting they were pre-collected. The reproducibility study explicitly states it was done at "3 external" sites.

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 set.

• For the Cut-Off Validation Study, Serotonin Release Assay (SRA) results were used as the reference standard, indicating a highly specialized laboratory assay.
• For the Method Comparison Study, the predicate device (HemosIL AcuStar HIT-IgG(PF4-H)) served as the reference standard.
• For the Normal Reference Range Study, patient classification as "Heparin Exposed, Non-HIT Suspected Patients" or "Healthy Donors" implies a clinical determination, but no expert involvement is specifically detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set or for establishing ground truth. The SRA and predicate device results appear to be taken as the reference.

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. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay, not an imaging or software device that would typically involve human readers. The study focuses on the analytical and clinical performance of the assay itself.

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

Yes, the studies described are standalone performance evaluations of the HemosIL CL HIT-IgG(PF4-H) assay. The device is a "fully automated, chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA)" and the performance data reflects its direct measurement capabilities on an ACL TOP 970 CL instrument without explicit human-in-the-loop interpretation beyond standard laboratory procedures for running the assay and reporting results. The device provides a qualitative positive or negative result based on a cut-off.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The types of ground truth used include:

• Serotonin Release Assay (SRA): For the cut-off validation study, which is considered a gold standard for HIT diagnosis.
• Predicate Device Results (HemosIL AcuStar HIT-IgG(PF4-H)): For the method comparison study, establishing equivalence to a previously cleared device.
• Clinical Diagnosis/Patient Classification: For the normal reference range study (e.g., "Heparin Exposed, Non-HIT Suspected Patients" and "Healthy Donors") and sample collection for methodology studies (e.g., "HIT-suspected patients", "patients diagnosed with Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS)").

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly describe a separate "training set" for the device. As an IVD immunoassay, the development process typically involves internal optimization and validation studies, but these are not usually structured as a distinct "training set" in the same way as machine learning algorithms. The mentioned studies are primarily for performance validation and substantial equivalence claims. A "Master Curve" is generated for the assay, which is "predefined and lot dependent" and stored in the instrument, indicating calibration and internal standardization but not a "training set" in the common sense for AI/ML.

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

Since an explicit "training set" in the context of AI/ML is not described, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable. The "Master Curve" concept implies calibration and validation using known standards and controls, which are part of the assay's design and manufacturing process.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ACL TOP Family 50 Series (ACL TOP 750; ACL TOP 750 CTS; ACL TOP 750 LAS; ACL TOP 550 CTS; ACL TOP 350 CTS) are bench top, fully automated, random access analyzers designed specifically for in vitro diagnostic clinical use in the hemostasis laboratory for coagulation and/or fibrinolysis testing in the assessment of thrombosis and/or hemostasis. The systems provide results for both direct hemostasis measurements and calculated parameters.

The ACL TOP Family 50 Series are fully automated coagulation analyzers that utilize the same intuitive software, the same consumables, reagents, calibrators and controls, and provide the same analytical methodology for routine and specialty assay result reporting as the predicate ACL TOP Family.

The ACL TOP Family 50 Series instrument performs the following types of tests, using the same optical measuring wavelengths and test parameters as the predicate ACL TOP Family:

• Coagulometric (Turbidimetric) Measurements
• . Chromogenic (Absorbance) Measurements
• . Immunological Measurements

The ACL TOP Family 50 Series also offers new pre-analytical features not available on the current ACL TOP Family as described below. These features are not intended to replace laboratory quality policies. The features simply alert the instrument operator to a potential HIL (Hemoglobin, Icteric and Lipemia) interference situation specific to the assays requested for a sample, underfilled sample tubes or a detected clog. The user will determine how to handle these situations (for example, by not reporting the results, or reporting the results with, or without, additional comments).

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria in the traditional sense of a clinical or performance study for a diagnostic device.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a Special 510(k) submission, focusing on software changes (new remote features and enhanced cybersecurity measurements) to an existing device, the ACL TOP Family 50 Series. The key statement regarding acceptance criteria and proof of performance is:

"The software verification and validation study results demonstrate that the ACL TOP Family 50 Series with updated nonanalytical features is safe and effective for its intended purpose and equivalent in performance to the predicate device (K150877)."

This indicates that the "acceptance criteria" were related to the software's functionality, security, and the assertion that these non-analytical changes do not impact the analytical performance of the instrument. The "study" mentioned is a "software verification and validation study."

Given this, I will extract and infer the information based on the context of a software-focused 510(k) for a device where analytical performance is already established by a predicate.

Here's the breakdown based on your requested format:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
The document refers to a "software verification and validation study results." For software changes, the "test set" would typically involve functional and security testing scenarios rather than patient data. The document does not specify a sample size in terms of patient data or the provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) because the changes are non-analytical software updates to an existing, already cleared device.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
Not applicable based directly on the provided text, as the "ground truth" for these software functionalities would be their correct operation and security posture, established by software engineers, cybersecurity experts, and regulatory experts. The document does not detail specific experts or their qualifications for the V&V study.

4. Adjudication method for the test set
Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for clinical studies involving human interpretation of medical images or tests. For software verification and validation of non-analytical features, testing protocols and bug reporting/resolution processes would be used.

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 device is a coagulation analyzer, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device involving "human readers." The changes specifically "do not impact the analytical performance of the instrument."

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
This is a device that runs algorithms for coagulation measurements, and the "standalone" performance of these measurement algorithms was established by the predicate device (K150877). The new features are remote control and cybersecurity updates, not new analytical algorithms. The software verification and validation focused on these new non-analytical features operating correctly without human intervention (e.g., remote update deployment), but this is not an "algorithm only" performance study in the typical sense for clinical impact.

7. The type of ground truth used
For the software verification and validation related to the new remote and cybersecurity features, the "ground truth" would be:

• Functional Specification Adherence: The software correctly performs the defined remote control and update delivery functions according to its design specifications.
• Security Standard Compliance: The cybersecurity features meet established security standards and mitigate identified risks.
• Non-Interference: The new features do not interfere with the validated analytical performance of the device.

8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This is a software update for an existing medical device, not a machine learning or AI algorithm development that requires a "training set" of data.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable, as there is no training set for the software changes described.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ACL TOP 970 CL is a bench top, fully automated, random access analyzer designed specifically for in vitro diagnostic use by health care professionals in a clinical laboratory for coagulation and/or fibrinolysis testing in the assessment of thrombosis and/or hemostasis.

The system provides results for both direct measurements and calculated parameters.

The ACL TOP 970 CL is an additional member of the ACL TOP Family 70 Series previously FDA cleared under K231031. This family member consists of two side-by-side test modules:

• . Main Module (ACL TOP 550 CTS, K150877) the subject of this submission
• Chemiluminescent (CL) Module previously FDA cleared under K221359 .

The Main Module to the ACL TOP 970 CL instrument performs the following types of tests, using the same optical measuring wavelengths and test parameters as the predicate (ACL TOP Family 50 Series):

• . Coagulometric (Turbidimetric) Measurements
• . Chromogenic (Absorbance) Measurements
• . Immunological Measurements

The ACL TOP 970 CL is an additional member of the ACL TOP Family 70 Series (K231031) and utilizes the same consumables, reagents, calibrators, and controls, and provides the same analytical methodology for routine and specialty assay result reporting as the predicate (ACL TOP Family 50 Series).

The ACL TOP 970 CL also offers the same pre-analytical features available on the ACL TOP Family 50 Series. These features alert the instrument operator to a potential HIL (Hemoglobin, Icteric and Lipemia) interference situation specific to the assays requested for a sample, underfilled sample tubes or a detected clog.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "ACL TOP 970 CL" device. This device is a Multipurpose System For In Vitro Coagulation Studies. Based on the content, it does not appear to be an AI/ML-driven device that would involve the complex ground truthing, expert reads, MRMC studies, or training/test set definitions typically associated with such technologies.

Instead, this submission is for a new hardware configuration (the ACL TOP 970 CL Main Module) that is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared device (ACL TOP Family 50 Series, K150877). The "studies" mentioned are analytical studies (precision and method comparison) to demonstrate that the new configuration performs equivalently to the predicate device for various coagulation assays.

Therefore, many of the requested points related to AI/ML device studies (e.g., number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, training set details) are not applicable to this type of device submission and are not found in the provided text.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantified, pre-defined table format for each test. Instead, it refers to industry-standard guidelines (CLSI EP05-A3, CLSI EP09c, 3rd Ed) and states that "all analytical studies were performed in accordance to established plans and protocols and design control procedures. Testing verified that all acceptance criteria were met and results equivalent to the predicate device."

However, we can infer the performance metrics from the results presented:

Reported Device Performance Tables (from the document):

HemosIL D-Dimer HS 500 (K172903) – D-dimer ng/mL FEU - Precision

HemosIL Factor VIII deficient plasma (K034007) – Factor VIII % Activity - Precision

HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (K070005) – Prothrombin Time Seconds - Precision

HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (K070005) – Fibrinogen mg/dL - Precision

HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa (K213464) – Heparin IU/mL - Precision

Method Comparison Results (ACL TOP 970 CL vs. ACL TOP 550 CTS):

HemosIL D-Dimer HS 500 (K172903) – D-dimer ng/mL FEU
N: 136, Slope: 0.939, Intercept: 27.0, r: 0.996

HemosIL Factor VIII deficient plasma (K034007) – Factor VIII % Activity
N: 105, Slope: 1.045, Intercept: 0.0, r: 0.993

HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (K070005) – Prothrombin Time Seconds
N: 118, Slope: 1.000, Intercept: 0.25, r: 0.998

HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (K070005) – Fibrinogen mg/dL
N: 123, Slope: 0.991, Intercept: 5.1, r: 0.998

HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa (K213464) – Heparin IU/mL
N: 139, Slope: 0.989, Intercept: 0.015, r: 0.997

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

• Precision Test Set Sample Size: For precision studies, samples for each material were run for 20 days, two runs per day, 2 replicates per run (n=80). This applies to each of the multiple materials tested for each assay (e.g., Low Control, High Control, etc.).

• Method Comparison Test Set Sample Size:

  • HemosIL D-Dimer HS 500: N=136 clinical samples
  • HemosIL Factor VIII deficient plasma: N=105 clinical samples
  • HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (Prothrombin Time): N=118 clinical samples
  • HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (Fibrinogen): N=123 clinical samples
  • HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa: N=139 clinical samples

• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the data or explicitly state whether the samples were retrospective or prospective. It mentions "clinical samples" for method comparison and "material" (controls/plasma pools) for precision. Typically, such studies for IVD devices are conducted in a controlled laboratory setting (prospective testing) using a mix of manufactured controls/calibrators and patient samples.

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

N/A. This is not an AI/ML device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for this in-vitro diagnostic device is the actual measurement of analytes, established by reference methods or validated predicate devices. Proficiency of technical staff operating the instruments would be presumed as per standard laboratory practices.

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

N/A. Not applicable to a measurement device; no human interpretation or adjudication beyond standard laboratory quality control and data review.

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

N/A. This is not an AI/ML device that assists human readers.

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

N/A. This is a standalone instrument for in-vitro diagnostic testing, not an algorithm. Its performance is based on its ability to accurately and precisely measure analytes. The "performance" tables provided are essentially the standalone performance of the device.

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

The ground truth for an in-vitro diagnostic coagulation system like this is based on:

• Reference Materials: For precision, known concentration control materials and plasma pools with established values are used.
• Comparative Measurements: For method comparison, results from the subject device are compared against a legally marketed predicate device (ACL TOP 550 CTS) which serves as the established reference. The assumption is that the predicate device's measurements are equivalent to the "ground truth" for the test.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is a hardware instrument with validated analytical capabilities.

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

N/A. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

HemosIL Chromogenic Factor IX is an automated assay for the photometric, quantitative determination of factor IX activity in 3.2% citrated plasma on the ACL TOP® Family and ACL TOP Family 50 Series in the laboratory setting by a healthcare professional. HemosIL Chromogenic Factor IX is indicated for use on patients when identifying factor IX deficiency or measuring factor IX activity from patients on replacement therapy. For adult population only. For prescription use only.

Factor IX activity in a patient's plasma is determined using a chromogenic method, in which human factor IX is activated by human factor XIa, and, when formed, factor IXa activates human factor X in the presence of human factor VIII, calcium and phospholipid. The amount of factor Xa generated is proportionate to the factor IX activity and is determined from the hydrolysis of a chromogenic factor Xa substrate. Results are determined by comparing a chromogenic signal to a calibration curve.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the studies that demonstrate the device's performance, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary for the HemosIL Chromogenic Factor IX:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a separate table. However, it presents performance characteristics that implicitly serve as success metrics for the device's substantial equivalence. I've extrapolated these based on the study findings.

Ask a specific question about this device

ACL TOP 970 CL: The ACL TOP 970 CL is a bench top, fully automated, random access analyzer designed specifically for in vitro diagnostic use by health care professionals in a clinical laboratory. The system provides results for both direct measurements and calculated parameters.
HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM: HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM is a fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for the semi-quantitative measurement of anti-cardiolipin (aCL) IgM antibodies in human 3.2% or 3.8% citrated plasma on the ACL TOP 970 CL in the laboratory setting by a healthcare professional, as an aid in the diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) when used in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. For use with adult population. For prescription use only.
HemosIL CL Anti-ß2 Glycoprotein-I IgM: HemosIL CL Anti-B2 Glycoprotein-I IgM is a fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for the semi-quantitative measurement of anti-B2 Glycoprotein-I (anti-B2GPI) IgM antibodies in human 3.2% or 3.8% citrated plasma on the ACL TOP 970 CL in the laboratory setting by a healthcare professional, as an aid in the diagnosis of Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) when used in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. For use with adult population. For prescription use only.

ACL TOP 970 CL Instrument: The ACL TOP 970 CL is an instrument that integrates new chemiluminescent test capability similar to the ACL AcuStar, K083518.
HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM: HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM is a chemiluminescent two-step immunoassay consisting of magnetic particles coated with cardiolipin and human purified ß2GPI, which capture, if present, the aCL antibodies from the sample. After incubation, magnetic separation, and a wash step, a tracer consisting of an isoluminol-labeled anti-human IgM antibody is added and may bind with the captured aCL IgM on the particles. After a second incubation, magnetic separation, and wash step, reagents that trigger the luminescent reaction are added, and the emitted light is measured as relative light units (RLU) by the ACL TOP 970 CL optical system. RLUs are directly proportional to the aCL IgM concentration in the sample.
HemosIL CL Anti-ß2 Glycoprotein-I IgM: HemosIL CL Anti-ß2 Glycoprotein-I IgM is a chemiluminescent two-step immunoassay consisting of magnetic particles coated with human purified ß2GPI, which capture, if present, the aß2GPI antibodies from the sample. After incubation, magnetic separation, and a wash step, a tracer consisting of an isoluminol-labeled anti-human IgM antibody is added and may bind with the captured aß2GPI IgM on the particles. After a second incubation, magnetic separation, and wash step, reagents that trigger the luminescent reaction are added, and the emitted light is measured as relative light units (RLUs) by the ACL TOP 970 CL optical system. RLUs are directly proportional to the aß2GPI IgM concentration in the sample.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the ACL TOP 970 CL instrument and two associated immunoassays, HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM and HemosIL CL Anti-β2 Glycoprotein-I IgM. The studies presented focus on analytical performance and comparability to predicate devices, rather than AI model performance or human-in-the-loop studies. Therefore, many of the requested elements pertaining to AI-driven diagnostic devices (such as expert adjudication, MRMC studies, or training set details for AI) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document.

However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria for the analytical performance of the assays and how that performance was demonstrated.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for these in vitro diagnostic devices are demonstrated through various analytical performance studies, focusing on precision, linearity, analytical sensitivity (LoD/LoQ), analytical specificity, and method comparison to predicate devices. The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance thresholds for each parameter (e.g., minimum CV for precision, minimum slope for linearity). Instead, it presents the results of these studies, implying that the observed performance met internal or regulatory acceptance.

HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM

• Low Multi-Ab Control: 1.6%
• High Multi-Ab Control: 1.2%
• Plasma Samples A-E: 1.6% - 9.6% |
  | Reproducibility (Low CV across sites/runs)| Reproducibility (% CV):
• Low Multi-Ab Control: 7.0%
• High Multi-Ab Control: 7.4%
• Clinical Samples 1-4: 4.5% - 9.5% |
  | Analytical Sensitivity (LoD/LoQ) | LoD: 1.0 U/mL
  LoQ: 1.0 U/mL |
  | Linearity Range | 2.7 - 500.0 U/mL |
  | Analytical Specificity (No interference) | No interference for: Hemoglobin, Bilirubin, Triglycerides, Heparin (LMW/UF), Rheumatoid Factor, Acetylsalicylic acid, Atorvastatin, Warfarin, Prednisone, Acid Citric Dextrose, Hydroxychloroquine, Rituximab at specified concentrations. |
  | Method Comparison (Strong correlation to predicate) | Slope (95% CI): 1.00 (0.98 - 1.01)
  r: 1.00 |
  | Diagnostic Performance (Sensitivity/Specificity vs. APS Classification - provided for context, not a direct "acceptance criterion" in the same way as analytical measures) | Sensitivity: 40.5% (33.8% - 47.6%)
  Specificity: 91.9% (88.4% - 94.5%) |

HemosIL CL Anti-β2 Glycoprotein-I IgM

• Low Multi-Ab Control: 12.8%
• High Multi-Ab Control: 11.5%
• Plasma Samples A-E: 3.6% - 7.2% |
  | Reproducibility (Low CV across sites/runs)| Reproducibility (% CV):
• Low Multi-Ab Control: 8.3%
• High Multi-Ab Control: 7.7%
• Clinical Samples 1-4: 4.8% - 8.3% |
  | Analytical Sensitivity (LoD/LoQ) | LoD: 2.0 U/mL
  LoQ: 2.0 U/mL |
  | Linearity Range | 1.9 - 400.0 U/mL |
  | Analytical Specificity (No interference) | No interference for: Hemoglobin, Bilirubin, Triglycerides, Heparin (LMW/UF), Rheumatoid Factor, Acetylsalicylic acid, Atorvastatin, Warfarin, Prednisone, Acid Citric Dextrose, Hydroxychloroquine, Rituximab at specified concentrations. |
  | Method Comparison (Strong correlation to predicate) | Slope (95% CI): 0.94 (0.92 – 0.96)
  r: 0.99 |
  | Diagnostic Performance (Sensitivity/Specificity vs. APS Classification - provided for context, not a direct "acceptance criterion" in the same way as analytical measures) | Sensitivity: 33.0% (26.7% - 39.9%)
  Specificity: 94.6% (91.4% - 96.6%) |

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

• Precision Study (Test Set):
  • HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM & Anti-β2 Glycoprotein-I IgM: 5 plasma samples (3 positive, 2 negative) and 2 levels of controls. Each material was run in duplicate, twice per day over 20 days.
• Reproducibility Study (Test Set):
  • HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM & Anti-β2 Glycoprotein-I IgM: 4 plasma samples (3 positive, 1 negative for Anti-Cardiolipin IgM; 3 positive for Anti-β2 Glycoprotein-I IgM) and 2 levels of controls. Each material tested in triplicate, twice a day for 5 days, totaling 30 replicates per level.
• Analytical Sensitivity (LoD/LoQ):
  • Specific sample numbers for LoD/LoQ for new reagent lots are not detailed, but samples prepared by combining Ab-positive and normal donor plasma were used.
• Linearity:
  • For each assay, samples were prepared by diluting a high antibody plasma sample with a negative antibody plasma sample to create required concentrations. Each level was measured in seven replicates.
• Normal Reference Range:
  • 100 citrated plasma normal donor samples.
• Method Comparison:
  • HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM: N = 131 samples.
  • HemosIL CL Anti-β2 Glycoprotein-I IgM: N = 123 samples.
• APS Outcome Study (Diagnostic Performance):
  • HemosIL CL Anti-Cardiolipin IgM: N = 500 samples.
  • HemosIL CL Anti-β2 Glycoprotein-I IgM: N = 503 samples (indicated by the sum of Positive/Negative categories: 63+17+128+295=503).

Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective, though typical clinical performance studies for diagnostic devices are usually prospective or utilize carefully curated samples. Reproducibility studies were conducted at "3 external sites."

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

This information is not provided. For these in vitro diagnostic immunoassays, the "ground truth" for the analytical performance studies (precision, linearity, etc.) is the quantitative measurement itself, validated against established laboratory methods or reference materials. For the "APS Outcome Study," the ground truth is "APS disease classification per 2006 International Consensus Statement from Miyakis et al." This classification is typically based on a combination of clinical and laboratory findings, interpreted by clinicians, but the specific number and qualifications of experts involved in this classification for the study samples are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

Not applicable, as this is an in vitro diagnostic device measuring analyte concentrations, not an imaging AI relying on expert interpretations or adjudications. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity/specificity) is compared against pre-defined clinical classification criteria (Miyakis et al. 2006).

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 document describes an in vitro diagnostic device (immunoassay and analyzer), not an AI-driven imaging diagnostic device. There is no mention of human readers or AI assistance in diagnostic interpretation.

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

The performance data provided (precision, linearity, sensitivity, specificity, method comparison) is the standalone performance of the device (instrument + assay). The device provides a semi-quantitative measurement of antibodies, which then aids in diagnosis when used "in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings." There is no "human-in-the-loop" component in the assay's direct operation or result generation as described beyond the healthcare professional performing the test.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Studies (Precision, Linearity, LoD/LoQ, Specificity): The ground truth is inherent to the nature of these highly controlled analytical tests. For example, for linearity, serially diluted samples with known concentrations are used. For interference, samples spiked with known interferents are used.
• Method Comparison: The ground truth is established by the measurements obtained from the predicate (reference) devices: HemosIL AcuStar Anti-Cardiolipin IgM (K092181) and HemosIL AcuStar Anti-β2 Glycoprotein-I IgM (K091556) on the ACL AcuStar (K083518).
• Normal Reference Range: Established by testing 100 samples from "normal donors."
• APS Outcome Study: "APS disease classification per 2006 International Consensus Statement from Miyakis et al." This is a consensus-based clinical classification criteria.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable, as this is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a distinct training set. The "development" of the assays would involve internal R&D, but not a "training set" in the context of AI.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set mentioned for an AI model. For the development/validation of the immunoassay itself, the "ground truth" for calibrators and controls would be established through careful analytical procedures, often traceable to international standards or reference materials, under strict quality control.

Ask a specific question about this device

The GEM Premier 7000 with iQM3 is a portable critical care system for use by health care professionals to rapidly analyze lithium heparinized whole blood samples at the point of health care delivery in a clinical setting and in a central laboratory. The instrument provides quantitative measurements of pH, pCO2, sodium, potassium, chloride, ionized calcium, glucose, lactate, hematocrit, total bilirubin, and CO-Oximetry (tHb, O2Hb, MetHb, HHb, sO2*) parameters from arterial, venous, or capillary lithium heparinized whole blood. These parameters, along with derived parameters, aid in the diagnosis of a patient's acid/base status, electrolyte and metabolite balance and oxygen delivery capacity.

*s02 = ratio between the concentration of oxyhemoglobin and oxyhemoglobin plus deoxyhemoglobin.

• · pH, pCO2, and pO2 measurements in whole blood are used in the diagnosis and treatment of life-threatening acid- base disturbances.
• · Electrolytes in the human body have multiple roles. Nearly all metabolic processes depend on or vary with electrolytes:
• Sodium (Na+) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of aldosteronism, diabetes insividus, adrenal hypertension, Addison's disease, dehydration, inappropriate antidiuretic secretion, or other diseases involving electrolyte imbalance.
• Potassium (K+) measurements are used to monitor electrolyte balance in the diagnosis and treatment
• of disease conditions characterized by low or high blood potassium levels.
• Ionized calcium (Ca++) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of parathyroid disease, a variety of bone diseases, chronic renal disease, and tetany.
• Chloride (Cl-) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of electrolyte and metabolic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis and diabetic acidosis.
• · Hematocrit (Hct) measurements in whole blood of the packed red cell volume of a blood sample are used to distinguish normal from abnormal states, such as anemia and erythrocytosis (an increase in the number of red cells).
• · Glucose (Glu) measurement is used in the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of carbohydrate metabolism
• disturbances including diabetes mellitus, neonatal hypoglycemia, idiopathic hypoglycemia, and pancreatic islet cell carcinoma.
• · Lactate (Lac) measurement is used:
• to evaluate the acid-base status of patients suspected of having lactic acidosis;
• to monitor tissue hypoxia and strenuous physical exertion;
• in the diagnosis of hyperlactatemia.
• · Total Bilirubin (tBili) measurement is used to aid in assessing the risk of kernicterus and hyperbilirubinemia in neonates.

• CO-Oximetry (tHb, COHb, MetHb, O2Hb, HHb, and sO2) evaluates the ability of the blood to carry oxygen by measuring total hemoglobin and determining the percentage of functional and dysfunctional hemoglobin species.

– Total Hemoglobin (tHb): Total hemoglobin measurements are used to measure the hemoglobin content of whole blood for the detection of anemia.

• COHo: Carboxyhemoglobin measurements are used to determine the carboxyhemoglobin content of human blood as an aid in the diagnosis of carbon monoxide poisoning.

• MetHb: Methemoglobin measurements are used to determine different conditions of methemoglobinemia.

• HHb: Deoxyhemoglobin, as a fraction of total hemoglobin, is used in combination with oxyhemoglobin to measure oxygen status.

• O2Hb: Oxyhemoglobin, as a fraction of total hemoglobin, is used in combination with deoxyhemoglobin to measure oxygen status.

• sO2: Oxygen saturation, more specifically the ratio between the concentration of oxyhemoglobin and oxyhemoglobin plus deoxyhemoglobin, is used to measure oxygen status.

The GEM Premier 7000 with iQMs system provides health care professionals with quantitative measurements of lithium heparinized whole blood pH, pCO2, pO2, Na*, K*, Ch, Ca**, glucose, lactate, Hct, total bilirubin and CO-Oximetry (tHb, O2Hb, COHb, MetHb, HHb, sO₂*) from arterial, venous or capillary samples at the point of health care delivery in a clinical setting and in a central laboratory.

*sO₂ = Ratio between the concentration of oxyhemoglobin plus deoxyhemoglobin plus deoxyhemoglobin.

Key Components:
Instrument: It employs a unique touch-sensitive color screen and a simple set of menus and buttons for user interaction. The analyzer guides operators through the sampling process with simple, clear messages and prompts.
PAK (Cartridge): All required components for sample analysis are contained in the GEM PAK, including sensors, optical cell for CO-Oximetry and total bilirubin, sampler, pump tubing, distribution valve, waste container and Process Control Solutions. The GEM PAK is an entirely closed analytical system. The operator cannot introduce changes to the analytical process before or during the GEM PAK's use-life on board the instrument. The GEM PAK has flexible menus and test volume options to assist facilities in maximizing efficiency. The EEPROM on the GEM PAK includes all solution values and controls the analyte menu and number of tests. The setup of the instrument consists of inserting the GEM PAK into the instrument. The instrument will perform an automated GEM PAK start-up during which the following is performed: warm-up (15 minutes), sensor conditioning (10 minutes), Process Control Solution (PCS) performance (15 minutes), all of which take about 40 minutes. After GEM PAK start-up, Auto PAK Validation (APV) process is automatically completed: two completely independent solutions traceable to NIST standards, CLSI procedures or internal standards, containing two levels of concentration for each analyte (PC Solution D and E), are run by the analyzer to validate the integrity of the PC Solutions and the overall performance of the analytical system. Note: GEM PAKs that include tBili analyte will require the successful performance of CVP 5 tBili. Includes all necessary components for hemolysis detection, such as an acoustofluidic flow cell, an LED light source and an optical detector, for appropriate flagging of potassium measurements in whole blood samples without additional sample volume or sample processing steps.
Intelligent Quality Management (iQM3): iQM3 is used as the quality control and assessment system for the GEM Premier 7000 system. iQM3 is an active quality process control program designed to provide continuous monitoring of the analytical process before, during and after sample measurement with real-time, automatic error detection, automatic correction of the system and automatic documentation of all corrective actions, replacing the use of traditional external QC. iQM3 introduces hemolysis detection in whole blood samples, enhancing quality assessment in the pre-analytical phase of testing.

Based on the provided text, the device in question is the GEM Premier 7000 with iQM3, which is a portable critical care system for analyzing blood samples. The document describes its comparison to a predicate device, the GEM Premier 5000, and discusses its performance studies.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

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

The document does not provide a direct table of specific numerical acceptance criteria for each analyte's performance (e.g., pH, pCO2, Na+, etc.) nor does it list the reported device performance in those exact terms. Instead, it states that "All verification activities were performed in accordance to established plans and protocols and design control procedures. Testing verified that all acceptance criteria were met."

The "Performance Summary" section lists the types of studies conducted to demonstrate that the modifications (specifically the new iQM quality check/Hemolysis detection module) do not impact the performance data represented in the Operators Manual, aligning with recognized guidelines. This implies the acceptance criteria are tied to maintaining performance comparable to the predicate device and being within acceptable ranges as defined by the mentioned CLSI guidelines.

Therefore, a table of explicit numerical acceptance criteria and reported performance values for each analyte is NOT AVAILABLE in the provided text. The document broadly states that the device met its acceptance criteria.

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

The document mentions several types of performance studies:

• Verification (Internal Method Comparison, Internal Whole Blood Precision, Hemolysis Interference on Potassium, Hemolysis Verification)
• Shelf-life and Use-life studies

However, the specific sample sizes used for these test sets are NOT provided in the text. There is also no information about the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective).

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

This information is NOT available in the provided text. The device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) instrument that provides quantitative measurements of various blood parameters. The "ground truth" for such devices typically comes from reference methods, calibrated standards, or comparative analyses with established, highly accurate laboratory instruments, rather than human expert consensus on interpretations like with imaging.

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

Given that this is an IVD device for quantitative measurements of blood parameters, the concept of "adjudication" by multiple human readers (like in imaging studies) does not directly apply. Performance is assessed through analytical accuracy, precision, and interference studies against known standards or reference methods. Therefore, no adjudication method in the sense of expert consensus on interpretations is described or implied.

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

There is no indication that a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was performed. This type of study is relevant for AI-assisted diagnostic tools where human interpretation is part of the workflow. The GEM Premier 7000 with iQM3 is described as an analytical instrument providing direct quantitative measurements, not an AI system assisting human readers with interpretation. The "iQM3" refers to Intelligent Quality Management, which is an automated quality control system for the instrument itself, not an AI for human diagnostic assistance.

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

The device itself is a standalone analytical instrument. The performance studies described (Internal Method Comparison, Internal Whole Blood Precision, Hemolysis Verification, etc.) essentially represent "standalone" performance, as they evaluate the accuracy and precision of the instrument's measurements directly. The iQM3 system is an internal quality control mechanism for the device's measurements. Therefore, yes, a standalone performance evaluation of the device's analytical capabilities was implicitly done.

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

For a device that provides quantitative measurements of blood parameters, the "ground truth" for the test set would typically be established using:

• Reference methods: Highly accurate and precise laboratory methods for measuring each analyte.
• Calibrated standards: Solutions with precisely known concentrations of the target analytes.
• Comparison to predicate device: As this is a 510(k) submission, a primary method of establishing "ground truth" performance for the new device is by comparing its measurements against those of a legally marketed predicate device (GEM Premier 5000), which itself would have been validated against reference methods and standards.

The text mentions "two completely independent solutions traceable to NIST standards, CLSI procedures or internal standards" for "Auto PAK Validation (APV)". This strongly suggests that traceable standards and potentially CLSI-defined reference methods were used to establish the ground truth for performance evaluation.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document describes the GEM Premier 7000 with iQM3 as a medical device for quantitative measurements, not explicitly as a machine learning/AI model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense (i.e., for supervised learning). The iQM3 is an "active quality process control program" with "Pattern Recognition (PR) software." While pattern recognition might involve some form of "training" or calibration, the document does not specify a separate "training set" in terms of data volume for such a process. It focuses on the validation of the device's analytical performance. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" sample size as applicable to AI/ML devices is not explicitly discussed or provided.

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

As noted above, the primary function of GEM Premier 7000 with iQM3 is quantitative measurement. If the "iQM3" component involved training for its "Pattern Recognition (PR) software," the document does not detail how a specific ground truth for such training was established. It primarily discusses the use of "Process Control Solutions (PCS)" and "Calibration Valuation Product (CVP 5)" for system checks and validation ("Auto PAK Validation (APV) process"). These solutions, traceable to NIST or CLSI standards, function as internal reference points for the device's operational checks and quality control, which could be considered an ongoing form of "ground truth" to maintain analytical performance, rather than a one-time "training set" for model development.

Ask a specific question about this device

HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa is an automated chromogenic assay for in vitro diagnostic use by laboratory professionals in clinical laboratories. The assay provides quantitative results on 3.2% citrated human plasma for the following analytes based on the calibrators used:

· When used with HemosIL Heparin Calibrators:

Quantitative determination of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) activity on the ACL TOP Family and ACL TOP Family 50 Series.

· When used with HemosIL Apixaban Calibrators:

Quantitative determination of apixaban on the ACL TOP Family 50 Series through measurement of factor Xa activity, which is inversely proportional to the apixaban level. With HemosIL Apixaban Calibrators, the assay is intended to measure apixaban concentrations in patients on apixaban therapy in the following situations where measurement of apixaban levels could be useful to have as additional information:

• Patients at risk for major bleeding

• Patients experiencing a bleeding episode

· When used with HemosIL Rivaroxaban Calibrators:

Quantitative determination of rivaroxaban on the ACL TOP Family and ACL TOP Family 50 Series through measurement of factor Xa activity, which is inversely proportional to the rivaroxaban level. With HemosL Rivaroxaban Calibrators, the assay is intended to measure rivaroxaban concentrations in patients on rivaroxaban therapy in the following situations where measurement of rivaroxaban levels could be useful to have as additional information:

• Patients at risk for major bleeding

• Patients experiencing a bleeding episode

The assay is not a stand-alone test and the results should be used in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. For use in adult population. For prescription use only.

HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa is a one stage chromogenic assay based on a synthetic chromogenic substrate and on Factor Xa inactivation. The assay provides quantitative rivaroxaban results on 3.2% citrated human plasma as follows: Rivaroxaban levels in patient plasma are measured automatically on ACL TOP Family and ACL TOP Family 50 Series when this assay is calibrated with HemosIL Rivaroxaban Calibrators. Rivaroxaban directly inhibits Factor Xa activity independent of the antithrombin present. The Factor Xa activity measured by the assay is exogenous. Factor Xa is neutralized directly by rivaroxaban. Residual Factor Xa is quantified with a synthetic chromogenic substrate. The paranitroaniline released is monitored kinetically at 405 nm and is inversely proportional to the rivaroxaban level in the sample.

HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa is an automated chromogenic assay for in vitro diagnostic use by laboratory professionals in clinical laboratories. The assay provides quantitative results on 3.2% citrated human plasma for the following analytes based on the calibrators used:

When used with HemosIL Heparin Calibrators:
• Quantitative determination of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) activity on the ACL TOP Family and ACL TOP Family 50 Series.

When used with HemosIL Apixaban Calibrators:
• Quantitative determination of apixaban on the ACL TOP Family and ACL TOP Family 50 Series through measurement of factor Xa activity, which is inversely proportional to the apixaban level. With HemosIL Apixaban Calibrators, the assay is intended to measure apixaban concentrations in patients on apixaban therapy in the following situations where measurement of apixaban levels could be useful to have as additional information:

• Patients at risk for major bleeding
• Patients experiencing a bleeding episode

When used with HemosIL Rivaroxaban Calibrators:
• Quantitative determination of rivaroxaban on the ACL TOP Family and ACL TOP Family 50 Series through measurement of factor Xa activity, which is inversely proportional to the rivaroxaban level. With HemosIL Rivaroxaban Calibrators, the assay is intended to measure rivaroxaban concentrations in patients on rivaroxaban therapy in the following situations where measurement of rivaroxaban levels could be useful to have as additional information:

• Patients at risk for major bleeding
• Patients experiencing a bleeding episode

The assay is not a stand-alone test and the results should be used in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings.

For use in adult population. For prescription use only.

This appears to be a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa," which is an in vitro diagnostic assay. The document details the device's technical specifications and performance studies to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

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

Important Note: The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence for the HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa assay for rivaroxaban measurement, comparing it to an existing HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa device for apixaban measurement. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" table below will reflect the performance characteristics the manufacturer is demonstrating for the new rivaroxaban application, and how its performance stacks up against those established for the predicate or against generally accepted analytical performance standards for such assays. It's not about a specific "AI" device as might be implied by some questions in the prompt, but rather a diagnostic assay.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a separate section with specific numerical targets. Instead, it presents various performance study results (Precision, Reproducibility, LoB/LoD/LoQ, Linearity, Interferences, Stability, Method Comparison) which collectively demonstrate the device's analytical performance. The acceptance is implied by the successful completion of these studies and the presented data.

Here's a table summarizing the reported device performance for the HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa for rivaroxaban measurement. The implicit acceptance criteria are that these performance characteristics are adequate for the intended use and comparable to or better than the predicate device/industry standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ACL TOP Family 70 Series (ACL TOP 370, ACL TOP 570 and ACL TOP 770 / 770s / 770 LAS) are bench top, fully automated, random access analyzers designed specifically for in vitro diagnostic clinical use by health care professionals in the hemostasis laboratory for coagulation and/or fibrinolysis testing in the assessment of thrombosis and/or hemostasis. The systems provide results for both direct hemostasis measurements and calculated parameters.

The ACL TOP Family 70 Series are fully automated coagulation analyzers that utilize the same intuitive software, the same consumables, reagents, calibrators and controls, and provide the same analytical methodology for routine and specialty assay result reporting as the predicate ACL TOP Family 50 Series.

The ACL TOP Family 70 Series instrument performs the following types of tests, using the same optical measuring wavelengths and test parameters as the predicate ACL TOP Family 50 Series:

• . Coagulometric (Turbidimetric) Measurements
• Chromogenic (Absorbance) Measurements .
• . Immunological Measurements

The ACL TOP Family 70 Series also offers the same pre-analytical features available on the ACL TOP Family 50 Series. These features alert the instrument operator to a potential HIL (Hemoglobin, Icteric and Lipemia) interference situation specific to the assays requested for a sample, underfilled sample tubes or a detected clog.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the ACL TOP Family 70 Series device, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion for the ACL TOP Family 70 Series appears to be demonstrating equivalent analytical performance to its predicate device, the ACL TOP Family 50 Series, across various representative assays. This equivalency is assessed through precision and method comparison studies.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• HemosIL D-Dimer HS 500: Low Control Total %CV 4.8, High Control Total %CV 2.1
• HemosIL Factor VIII: Normal Control Total %CV 3.4, Abnormal Control Total %CV 4.8
• HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (PT): Normal Control Total %CV 1.8, High Abn Control %CV 4.0
• HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (Fibrinogen): Normal Control Total %CV 3.9, Low Fibrinogen Control %CV 8.1
• HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa: UF Low Control Total %CV 1.8, LMW High Control Total %CV 2.2 |
  | Method Comparison | Linear regression analysis (slope, intercept, correlation coefficient 'r') between the subject device and predicate device should demonstrate equivalent performance across the analytical measuring range (AMR), according to established guidelines (CLSI EP09c. 3rd Ed). | Successfully met criteria. All studies showed strong correlation (r ≥ 0.998) and slopes close to 1 with intercepts close to 0, indicating equivalence. Examples:
• HemosIL D-Dimer HS 500: Slope 1.022, Intercept 0.5575, r 0.998
• HemosIL Factor VIII: Slope 1.006, Intercept -0.0587, r 0.998
• HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (PT): Slope 1.012, Intercept -0.0940, r 1.000
• HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (Fibrinogen): Slope 0.9756, Intercept -1.1220, r 0.999
• HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa: Slope 0.9804, Intercept -0.0145, r 0.999 |
  | Overall Conclusion | Updates introduced do not impact the labeled performance data of the current menu of FDA-cleared assays. Device is safe and effective for its intended purpose and equivalent in performance to the predicate device. | Analytical study results demonstrate that the ACL TOP Family 70 Series, with updated non-analytical features, is safe and effective for its intended purpose and equivalent in performance to the predicate device (K150877). |

Study Details:

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

   • Precision Studies:
     • For each material/control for the selected representative assays, samples were run for 20 days at two runs per day, 2 replicates per run, resulting in a total of n=80 data points per material.
     • Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but based on the context of an FDA submission for an in vitro diagnostic device, these would typically be laboratory-generated samples or commercial control materials. The studies were performed internally by the manufacturer ("Instrumentation Laboratory Company").
   • Method Comparison Studies:
     • Sample sizes varied per assay:
       • HemosIL D-Dimer HS 500: N = 116 clinical samples
       • HemosIL Factor VIII: N = 104 clinical samples
       • HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (PT): N = 116 clinical samples
       • HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (Fibrinogen): N = 114 clinical samples
       • HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa: N = 207 clinical samples
     • Provenance: The studies included "clinical samples spanning each assay's analytical measuring range (AMR)." The country of origin of these clinical samples is not specified, but they are prospectively collected or selected for the study based on their span across the AMR.

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

   • This being an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device for laboratory analysis, the "ground truth" for the test set is established by the measurement itself on a recognized, cleared, and well-characterized comparator device (the predicate ACL TOP Family 50 Series), or by the known concentrations/activity of control materials. It's not a subjective interpretation task that requires human adjudication or expert consensus in the same way as, for example, image-based diagnostic AI. Therefore, no human experts are explicitly mentioned as establishing a subjective ground truth for these analytical performance studies. The "ground truth" for method comparison is the performance of the predicate device.

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

   • None. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving subjective human interpretation (e.g., radiology reads) where discrepancies need to be resolved. For analytical performance studies of a medical device measuring quantitative analytes, the ground truth is objective (the measured value from the predicate device or a known concentration in a control).

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 study is not applicable here as this is an in vitro diagnostic instrument, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting cases. The device automatically performs coagulation and/or fibrinolysis testing.

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

   • Yes, effectively. The entire study evaluates the analytical performance of the device itself (the ACL TOP Family 70 Series) in a standalone manner. While trained lab personnel operate the instrument, the performance metrics (precision, method comparison) are about the instrument's ability to produce accurate and precise results, independent of human interpretive intervention for the results themselves. The device's "algorithm" (its internal measurement and calculation processes) is being evaluated.

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

   • For precision studies, the ground truth is the known concentration/activity of control and plasma pool materials.
   • For method comparison studies, the ground truth is the measured values obtained from the predicate device (ACL TOP Family 50 Series) for the same clinical samples. The principle is to see if the new device produces equivalent results when compared to an already accepted diagnostic method.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not mention a training set in the context of machine learning or AI model development. This device is an IVD instrument that utilizes established analytical methodologies (coagulometric, chromogenic, immunological measurements) and software, rather than a machine learning model that requires a discrete training phase with labeled data. The studies performed are verification and validation studies to demonstrate performance and equivalency to a predicate.

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

   • As there is no mention of a "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model, this question is not applicable. The device's operation is based on pre-defined analytical principles, not on learning from a training dataset to establish a ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

The GEM Premier ChemSTAT is a portable critical care system for use by health care professionals to rapidly analyze lithium heparinized whole blood samples at the point of health care delivery in a clinical setting and in a central laboratory. The instrument provides quantitative measurements of sodium (Na+), Potassium (K+), Ionized Calcium (Ca++), Chloride (Cl-), Glucose (Glu), Lactate (Lac), Hematocrit (Hct), Creatinine (Crea), Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN), Total Carbon Dioxide (tCO2), pH, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) from arterial and venous heparinized whole blood. These parameters, along with derived parameters, aid in the diagnosis of a patient's acid/base status, electrolyte and metabolite balance.

Electrolytes in the human body have multiple roles. Nearly all metabolic processes depend on or vary with electrolytes:

· Sodium (Na+) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of aldosteronism, diabetes insipidus, adrenal hypertension, Addison's disease, dehydration, inappropriate antidiuretic secretion, or other diseases involving electrolyte imbalance.

· Potassium (K+) measurements are used to monitor electrolyte balance in the diagnosis and treatment of disease conditions characterized by low or high blood potassium levels.

· Ionized calcium (Ca++) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of parathyroid disease, a variety of bone diseases, chronic renal disease and tetany. · Chloride (Cl-) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of electrolyte and metabolic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis and diabetic acidosis.

· Glucose (Glu) measurement is used in the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of carbohydrate metabolism disturbances including diabetes mellitus, neonatal hypoglycemia, idiopathic hypoglycemia, and of pancreatic islet cell carcinoma.

· Lactate (Lac) measurement is used to evaluate the acid-base status of patients suspected of having lactic acidosis, to monitor tissue hypoxia and strenuous physical exertion, and in the diagnosis of hyperlactatemia.

· Hematocrit (Hct) measurements in whole blood of the packed red cell volume of a blood sample are used to distinguish normal from abnormal states, such as anemia and erythrocytosis (an increase in the number of red cells).

· Creatinine (Crea) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of renal diseases and in monitoring renal dialysis.

· Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN) or urea measurements are used for the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of certain renal and metabolic diseases.

· Total carbon dioxide/tCO2 (also referred to as bicarbonate/HCO3-) is used in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of numerous potentially serious disorders associated with changes in body acid-base balance.

· pH and pCO2 measurements in whole blood are used in the diagnosis and treatment of life-threatening acid-base disturbances.

The GEM Premier ChemSTAT system provides fast, accurate, quantitative measurements of Sodium (Na"), Potassium (K*), Ionized Calcium (Ca*), Chloride (Cl·), Glucose (Glu), Lactate (Lac), Hematocrit (Hct), Creatinine (Crea), Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN), Total Carbon Dioxide (tCO2), pH, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) from arterial and venous lithium heparinized whole blood.

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) submission for an upgrade to the operating system of the GEM Premier ChemSTAT device. The device itself is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) system for quantitative measurements of various blood parameters. The submission focuses on the software upgrade rather than a change in the device's fundamental function or performance.

Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" in this context refer to the successful verification and validation of the software upgrade and the continued adherence to the established performance of the unmodified device, as the indications for use and performance claims remain unchanged. The study proving this essentially consists of the software verification and validation activities.

Here's the information extracted from the document, tailored to the context of a software upgrade:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a software upgrade with no changes to the performance claims of the device, the general acceptance criteria are that the upgraded software performs as intended without adversely affecting the device's established performance specifications. The reported device performance is that these criteria were met.

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

The document does not specify a "test set sample size" or "data provenance" in the traditional sense for evaluating diagnostic performance. The focus is on software verification and validation. Therefore, the "sample" for testing the software functionality would be the various test cases and scenarios designed to validate the operating system upgrade and its interaction with the GEM Premier ChemSTAT application software.

The document states: "Performance data is limited to Software Verification and Validation as the scope of this Special 510(k) is specific to an operating system upgrade from Fedora 17 Linux to WindRiver LTS 18 Linux."

Further details on the specific number of test cases, the nature of the data (e.g., simulated, actual runs on the device), or its origin are not provided in this summary.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not applicable to a software operating system upgrade as described. "Ground truth" in the context of expert consensus is typically relevant for diagnostic performance studies where human interpretation or a gold standard reference is needed (e.g., pathology for an imaging device). Here, the "ground truth" is the proper functioning of the software and its integration with the hardware, which is evaluated through engineering and software testing.

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

This information is not applicable for a software operating system upgrade. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in clinical studies to resolve discrepancies in expert interpretation of diagnostic results. Software verification and validation typically rely on predefined test outcomes and engineering assessments.

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 information is not applicable. An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is used to evaluate the impact of an AI algorithm on human reader performance, usually for diagnostic tasks. This submission is for a software operating system upgrade for an existing IVD device, not for a new AI algorithm.

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

The concept of "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm's diagnostic capability (like an AI algorithm) is not directly applicable here. The device itself (GEM Premier ChemSTAT) operates to provide quantitative measurements. The software upgrade ensures the continued, correct operation of the device. The verification and validation activities demonstrate that the upgraded software performs its functions correctly as part of the overall device system.

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

For this software upgrade, the "ground truth" is the expected behavior and functionality of the software and the device. This is established through:

• Functional specifications: The software is expected to perform according to its design specifications.
• Risk analysis: The software should not introduce new risks or fail to mitigate existing ones.
• Cybersecurity standards: The software should meet cybersecurity requirements.
• Established device performance: The software upgrade should not negatively impact the established analytical and clinical performance of the GEM Premier ChemSTAT device (which relies on the physical and chemical principles of its measurements).

The document explicitly states that the changes "do not introduce...changes to labeled performance claims." This implies that the performance of the device (e.g., accuracy, precision of Na+, K+, Glu measurements) remains the same as previously cleared, and the software upgrade was validated not to alter these.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. Training sets are used for machine learning models. This submission describes a conventional software operating system upgrade (Fedora 17 Linux to WindRiver LTS 18 Linux) for an existing IVD device, not the development or retraining of a machine learning algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no training set for a machine learning model; it is a software operating system upgrade.

Ask a specific question about this device