Search Results

The SensiTox B. anthracis Toxin Test for use with the MultiPath Analyzer, is a qualitative immunofluorescence assay to aid in the diagnosis of inhalation anthrax. The test is intended for the rapid, qualitative detection of lethal factor, a biomarker associated with Bacillus anthracis). The test can be used with whole blood collected with dipotassium EDTA anticoagulant by venipuncture. This testing samples from individuals who have signs and symptoms consistent with inhalation anthrax and a likelihood of exposure to B. anthracis. A positive SensiTox B. anthracis Toxin Test result is presumptively diagnostic for B. anthracis infection. Diagnosis of B. anthracis infection must be made in conjunction with medical history, likelihood of exposure, signs, and symptoms of disease, as well as other laboratory evidence. The definitive identification of B. anthracis from blood samples additional testing and confirmation procedures in consultation with public health or other authorities for whom reports are required. Testing should be performed and reported in accordance with current guidelines provided by the appropriate public health authorities. The level of lethal factor present in blood from individuals with early systemic infection is unknown. Negative results do not preclude infection with the biothreat microbial agents targeted by the device and should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other patient management decisions.

Laboratories performing the SensiTox B. anthracis Toxin Test must have the appropriate biosafety equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE), containment facilities, and personnel trained in the safe handling of clinical specimens potentially containing B. anthracis.

The SensiTox B. anthracis Toxin Test is for prescription use only.

This assay is not FDA-cleared or approved for testing blood or plasma donors.

The SensiTox B. anthracis Toxin Test, run on the MultiPath Analyzer, detects lethal factor in venous whole blood samples using an immunofluorescence assay and the proprietary MultiPath detection technology.

A whole blood specimen, collected in dipotassium EDTA, from individuals with signs and symptoms consistent with inhalation anthrax and a likelihood of exposure, is used for the test. The blood sample is added directly to the SensiTox B. anthracis Cartridge, a single use consumable that contains all the reagents required to run the test. The Cartridge is loaded onto the MultiPath Analyzer for processing through the steps of the assay.

Once loaded onto the Analyzer, the barcodes on the cartridge that identify the test type and associated test specific information (manufacturer installed barcode) and sample (laboratory affixed barcode) are read. The cartridge is moved to the fluidics station where it is first heated to 35°C. The sample is then split into 3 equal aliquots in 3 distribution wells within the cartridge. The sample aliquots flow from the distribution wells to the reagent wells containing target-specific antibody conjugated fluorescent and magnetic particles in the form of lyophilized beads. Upon contact with the sample, the lyophilized beads rehydrate and the reaction mixtures flow into the imaging wells, the bottoms of which are coated with a dye cushion reagent. Upon contact with the reagents, the dye-cushion dissolves forming a dense opaque aqueous layer that separates the sample and reagents from the bottom optical surface of the Imaging Well. In the upper assay layer, the toxins, if present, bind to the magnetic and fluorescent particles tethering them together. The cartridge is incubated for 12 minutes to allow the reaction to take place and then is moved to the magnetics station. At the magnetics station, the imaging well is placed over permanent magnets that draw the magnetic particles and any fluorescent particles that are tethered to them via the target molecules through the dye-cushion layer, depositing them on the bottom imaging surface. The captured fluorescent particles are imaged and quantified using nonmagnified digital imaging.

The Analyzer can be run in batch mode or by random access. Up to 20 cartridges can be loaded onto the Analyzer in parallel. The first result is reported in approximately 21 minutes of loading the cartridge onto the Analyzer with subsequent results being reported in 2.5-minute increments. The results are interpreted using the MultiPath applications software as valid or invalid, and if valid, the results are reported as Lethal Factor detected. Results are displayed on the instrument touch screen and can be printed.

Here's a summary of the SensiTox B. anthracis Toxin Test's acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as distinct pass/fail thresholds in the provided document, but rather implied by the design and results of the performed studies. The reported performance metrics from the non-clinical and clinical tests are:

Study Details

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

   • Limit of Detection (LoD):
     • Test set: Minimum of 5 serial dilutions, tested in replicates of 20 each.
     • Data provenance: In-house generated data using recombinant Lethal Factor or native Lethal Factor from B. anthracis culture supernatants spiked into whole blood from healthy donors.
   • Reproducibility:
     • Test set: 270 samples (90 per site, 3 replicates per sample for each operator). Samples were whole blood spiked with low positive (1.5X LoD), moderate positive (3X LoD) recombinant LF, and negative (unspiked).
     • Data provenance: In-house generated data using spiked whole blood from healthy donors.
   • Analytical Reactivity (Inclusivity):
     • Test set: 29 B. anthracis strains. Supernatants spiked into whole blood at 3X LoD, tested in triplicate.
     • Data provenance: In-house generated data using B. anthracis strains.
   • Analytical Specificity (Cross-Reactivity):
     • Test set: Over 100 bacterial, viral, protozoan, and fungal pathogens (see Table 5.5 in the document). Each tested in triplicate by addition to pre-screened K₂EDTA human venous whole blood.
     • Data provenance: In-house generated data using specified pathogens.
   • Analytical Specificity (Interference):
     • Test set: Over 100 bacterial, viral, fungal, and protozoan pathogens (see Table 5.6 in the document). Each tested in triplicate by addition to pre-screened K₂EDTA human venous whole blood containing 3X LoD recombinant LF.
     • Data provenance: In-house generated data using specified pathogens spiked into blood.
   • Interfering Substances:
     • Test set: 8 endogenous and 33 exogenous substances (see Table 5.7 in the document). Each tested in triplicate in unspiked and 3X LoD spiked K₂EDTA whole blood.
     • Data provenance: In-house generated data using specified interfering substances.
   • Hook Effect:
     • Test set: 10 dilutions of recombinant LF from 50 pg/mL to 50 µg/mL. Three replicates per dilution.
     • Data provenance: In-house generated data using recombinant LF spiked into whole blood.
   • Clinical Performance Evaluation:
     • Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) - Residual specimens: 318 residual whole blood specimens (from a single clinical site).
     • Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and NPA - Prospective specimens: 105 prospectively collected whole blood specimens from febrile patients (contingent on being eligible after initial 21 withdrawals). These were used for both unspiked and spiked testing. Contrived specimens (prepared from these prospective samples, spiked with native or recombinant LF at 1.5X LoD, 5X LoD, or 5 µg/mL) were also tested blinded at a second site.
     • Data provenance: Clinical sites in the US (residual and prospective).

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

   • For the non-clinical studies (LoD, Reproducibility, Analytical Reactivity, Specificity, Interference, Hook Effect), the ground truth was based on the precisely controlled spiking of known concentrations of Lethal Factor, specific B. anthracis strains, various pathogens, or interfering substances. No human expert consensus was used for these.
   • For the Clinical Performance Evaluation, the ground truth for NPA in residual specimens was that they were presumed negative for B. anthracis Lethal Factor as they were collected for routine hematology analysis. For the prospective study, the ground truth was established by spiking the collected blood with known concentrations of Lethal Factor for PPA calculation. The intrinsic "negative" status of the febrile patients for naturally occurring anthrax Lethal Factor served as the ground truth for NPA. The document does not specify the qualifications of personnel involved in sample collection or initial characterization, but it implies standard clinical laboratory practices.

3. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable for this device as it's an in vitro diagnostic testing for a biomarker, not image-based or human-interpreted data that would require adjudication. The device provides a qualitative "Lethal Factor detected" or "Lethal Factor not detected" result.

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: Not applicable. This is an automated immunofluorescence assay for a biomarker, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device requiring human interpretation of results.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Yes, the SensiTox B. anthracis Toxin Test, run on the MultiPath Analyzer, is a standalone device. The results are "interpreted using the MultiPath applications software as valid or invalid, and if valid, the results are reported as Lethal Factor detected." There is no explicit human-in-the-loop performance described beyond the loading of the cartridge and reading of the digital display.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Non-clinical studies: Laboratory-controlled ground truth established by known concentrations of recombinant or native Lethal Factor, quantified culture supernatants, and characterized pathogen strains.
   • Clinical Performance Evaluation:
     • Residual specimens (NPA): Presumed negative as they were "residual whole blood specimens collected in K₂EDTA for routine hematology analysis."
     • Prospective specimens (PPA): Artificially created by spiking prospectively collected patient blood with known concentrations of Lethal Factor.
     • Prospective specimens (NPA): Based on the absence of spiked Lethal Factor and the enrollment criteria (febrile patients without confirmed anthrax, ensuring presumed negativity for the target biomarker).

7. The sample size for the training set: Not explicitly stated as a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning. For this in vitro diagnostic device, the developmental and validation process involves extensive analytical studies (LoD, cross-reactivity, interference, etc.) using numerous spiked samples and characterized strains. The "training" in this context refers to the development and optimization of the assay and software algorithms during product development, which would likely have involved an internal set of samples, but no specific training set size is provided in this summary.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: As above, the ground truth for the development and optimization of the assay and software would have been established by precisely controlling the input (e.g., specific concentrations of LF, specific pathogen strains) in a laboratory setting. This is a common approach for in vitro diagnostic device development.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test is an immunofluorescence assay intended for the qualitative detection of Clostridioides difficile toxins A and/or B in human stool specimens. The test is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) in patients exhibiting symptoms of CDI. Negative results do not preclude toxigenic C. difficile infection. The SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other management decisions. The test can only be used with the MultiPath platform.

The SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test detects toxins A and B in stool samples using an immunofluorescence assay and the proprietary MultiPath detection technology. The assay is performed on the proprietary MultiPath Analyzer. A stool sample is added to Stool Specimen Diluent, processed through a spin column, and the filtrate is added to the SensiTox C. difficile Cartridge. The Cartridge is loaded onto the MultiPath Analyzer for processing. The Analyzer reads barcodes, heats the cartridge, splits the sample into aliquots, mixes with antibody conjugated fluorescent and magnetic particles, and incubates. Magnetic particles and tethered fluorescent particles are drawn to the bottom imaging surface by magnets and imaged and quantified using non-magnified digital imaging. Results are interpreted by the MultiPath applications software.

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

Device: SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the performance metrics reported, as these are the benchmarks the device aims to meet.

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

• Clinical Study Test Set Sample Size: 1046 human stool specimens.
• Data Provenance: Prospective clinical study performed at three geographically diverse sites in the US. The samples were "left over de-identified, unpreserved, stool specimens from patients suspected of having C. difficile infection." This indicates a prospective collection for the purpose of the study, though using "left over" specimens.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The ground truth for the clinical study was established by the Cellular Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay (CCNA), which is a laboratory method, not human expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the ground truth was established by a laboratory assay (CCNA), not by human adjudication of clinical images or interpretations.

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. The SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test is an in vitro diagnostic device that directly detects toxins in stool samples using an immunofluorescence assay run on an automated analyzer. It is not an AI-assisted imaging device or a tool that directly assists human readers/interpreters in a diagnostic workflow where their performance would be measured with and without AI.

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

Yes, the performance data presented is for the device operating in a standalone capacity (algorithm only). The MultiPath Analyzer interprets the results using its applications software, reporting "toxin detected" or "toxin not detected" automatically. There is no human interpretative step described for the SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test's output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Bench Studies (LoD, Reproducibility, Analytical Reactivity, Analytical Specificity, Interfering Substances): The ground truth was established using known spiked samples (purified toxins, cultured organisms, interfering substances) in negative pooled stool.
• Clinical Performance Evaluation: The ground truth was established by the Cellular Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay (CCNA). CCNA is a traditional laboratory method for detecting C. difficile toxins and is considered a gold standard for toxin activity.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided in the document. The document describes a "test set" for clinical performance evaluation but does not specify a separate "training set" with its sample size for the development of the device's analytical interpretation software. Given this is an in vitro diagnostic device, the "training" would likely involve optimizing the assay chemistry and the MultiPath Analyzer's ability to detect the fluorescent signals, rather than a machine learning model trained on a large dataset of patient samples.

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

Since the document does not mention a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning, the establishment of ground truth for any internal development or optimization of the device would implicitly involve the same methods used for the bench studies: controlled experiments with known concentrations of purified toxins and known negative samples, and potentially comparisons to established laboratory methods like CCNA during early development. The document focuses on the validation studies, not necessarily the development phase details.

Ask a specific question about this device

Light Diagnostics SimulFluor® HSV1/2 Immunofluorescence Assay is a direct immunofluorescence test intended for the detection and identification of herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) following amplification in cell culture or by direct examination of clinical specimens prepared by cytocentrifugation. Specimens found to be negative on direct specimen examination should be tested by cell culture.

For in vitro diagnostic use.

Light Diagnostics SimulFluor® HSV 1/2 Immunofluorescence Assay utilizes a single reagent for the simultaneous detection and identification of HSV-1 and HSV-2. The SimulFluor® HSV 1/2 Reagent consists of two components; the primary component specific for HSV-1 will bind to the glycoprotein C and a capsid-associated protein in HSV-1 infected cells, while the secondary component, specific for HSV-2, will bind to the glycoprotein G in HSV-2 infected cells. Unbound reagent is removed by rinsing with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Illumination with ultraviolet light allows visualization of the antigenantibody complexes by fluorescence microscopy. When an FITC filter set is used, HSV-1- infected cells will exhibit apple-green fluorescence and HSV-2infected cells will exhibit yellow-gold fluorescence. The uninfected cells will stain a dull red due to the presence of Evans blue in the SimulFluor® HSV 1/2 reagent.

A blend of monoclonal antibodies directed against HSV-1 and HSV-2 is used in the Light Diagnostics SimulFluor® HSV 1/2 reagent. The use of monoclonal antibodies ensures increased specificity of reagent and reduces the risk of nonspecific background or interference.

This document describes the acceptance criteria and study details for the Light Diagnostics SimulFluor® HSV1/2 Immunofluorescence Assay.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the comparison to predicate devices and the confidence intervals reported for sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement, indicating that the device's performance should be comparable to or ideally exceed these established methods. The "Clinical Study: Site 1" and "Clinical Study: Site 2" sections provide the reported device performance. Given the type of device (an immunofluorescence assay comparing to similar assays), the primary performance metrics are sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement.

Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a dedicated section. Instead, the "Conclusions drawn from evaluations" section states that the device's performance characteristics "were shown to be substantially equivalent to those of Bartels HSV Typing Test and the DPC PathoDx® Herpes Typing kit." Therefore, the reported performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement with tight confidence intervals) meeting or exceeding those of the predicate devices are the implicit acceptance criteria.

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

• Clinical Study: Site 1

  • Test Set Sample Size: 191 specimens were submitted. After exclusions (40 insufficient cells, 1 contaminated culture, 3 VZV positive), the evaluable sample size for direct specimen testing was 147 (19+128 for HSV-1, 27+120 for HSV-2). For comparison against a comparative device, 33 HSV-1 and 29 HSV-2 isolates were identified by both reagents.
  • Data Provenance: North-central United States, retrospective (specimens "were submitted" indicating existing samples).

• Clinical Study: Site 2

  • Test Set Sample Size:
    • Shell vials: 214 specimens. 24 HSV-1 and 37 HSV-2 isolates were detected.
    • Culture plates: 227 specimens. 32 HSV-1 and 46 HSV-2 isolates were detected.
  • Data Provenance: Southwestern United States, retrospective (specimens "were submitted" indicating existing samples).

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. It refers to "clinical virology laboratory" and "reference laboratory" and implies standard laboratory procedures for culture confirmation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method for reconciling disagreements. For Site 1, the "culture confirmation" was used as the reference against which the direct specimen testing was compared. For the comparison against predicate devices, it appears a straightforward comparison of results was performed.

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 section is not applicable as the described device is an immunofluorescence assay for detecting viruses, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool interpreted by human readers. It's a laboratory test where a technician observes fluorescence, not a system that improves human diagnostic performance via AI.

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

This section is not applicable. The device is an immunofluorescence assay that requires manual preparation, staining, and microscopic observation by a trained laboratory technician. It is not an automated algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

The ground truth used was cell culture (viral culture), which is a gold standard for detecting and identifying HSV-1 and HSV-2. In Site 1, "culture confirmation" was used. In Site 2, "standard cultures" and "spin-amplified shell vials" were used as reference methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly describe a separate "training set" for the clinical evaluation. The non-clinical evaluation section mentions that antibodies were "characterized for their ability to detect HSV types 1 and 2" using "reference viral strains and clinical isolates," but this is more akin to initial assay development and validation rather than a distinct training set for an algorithm.

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

Given the absence of an explicit "training set" as understood for machine learning algorithms, this question is not applicable in the context of this immunofluorescence assay submission. The "characterization" of the antibodies relied on testing with "reference viral strains and clinical isolates" whose identities would have been established through standard virological methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

Light Diagnostics SimulFluor™ HSV/VZV Immunofluorescence Assay is a direct immunofluorescence test intended for the simultaneous detection and identification of HSV 1 and 2 and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) from patients with vesicular, oral, genital, or skin lesions, and following amplification of virus in culture. Specimens found to be negative on direct specimen examination should be tested by cell culture.

Light Diagnostics SimulFluor™ HSV/VZV Immunofluorescence Assay utilizes a single reagent for the simultaneous detection and identification of HSV and VZV. The primary component, specific for both HSV 1 and 2 will bind to 155kD major capsid protein in HSV-infected cells. The secondary component, specific for VZV, will bind to glycoprotein gp I and the immediate early antigen in VZV-infected cells. Unbound reagent is removed by rinsing with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Illumination with ultraviolet light allows visualization of the antigen-antibody complexes by fluorescence microscopy. When a FITC filter set is used, the HSV antigen-antibody complex will exhibit an apple green fluorescence and the VZV antigen-antibody complex will fluoresce yellow-gold. Uninfected cells stain a dull red due to the presence of Evans blue in the reagent.

A blend of monoclonal antibodies directed against HSV and VZV is used in the Light Diagnostics SimulFluor™ HSV/VZV reagent. The use of monoclonal antibodies ensures increased specificity of the reagent and reduces the risk of non-specific background or interference.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Light Diagnostics SimulFluor™ HSV/VZV Immunofluorescence Assay, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "the device must achieve a sensitivity of at least X%"). Instead, it reports the performance of the device and concludes that it is "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, thus demonstrating safety and effectiveness. The reported performance metrics are presented below.

Study Details

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

   • Site 1 (Northeast US): 203 specimens tested for HSV or VZV.
   • Site 2 (West Coast US): 283 specimens submitted for HSV and/or VZV testing; 236 specimens tested for HSV and VZV in direct specimens.
   • Data Provenance: Clinical evaluations were conducted at two separate hospital laboratories in the US (Northeast and West Coast). The data is retrospective, as it involves the comparison of direct patient specimens and cell cultures.

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 ground truth. The ground truth was established by "culture confirmation."

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

   • The document does not describe any specific adjudication method for discrepancy resolution. Ground truth was determined solely by "culture confirmation."

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, this was not a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI. This is a study evaluating an immunofluorescence assay (a laboratory test) against predicate devices and culture.

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

   • This device is a direct immunofluorescence assay, which inherently requires human observation (fluorescence microscopy). Therefore, a "standalone algorithm only" performance is not applicable in the context of this device. The performance reported is the performance of the assay as read by a human.

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

   • The primary ground truth used for the clinical evaluation was culture confirmation.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The non-clinical evaluations involved characterization of monoclonal antibodies using "reference viral strains and clinical isolates," but a specific sample size for this characterization is not provided, nor is it analogous to a machine learning training set.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no mention of a traditional machine learning training set. The characterization of antibodies involved testing against "reference viral strains and clinical isolates," implying known or well-characterized viral types.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Light Diagnostics Rabies DFA Reagent is intended for the detection of rabies antigens in culture and in acetone-fixed brain and submaxillary tissues of infected animals. Thus the assay could be used as an aid in the indirect diagnosis of human rabies virus infection. All specimens that are negative or indeterminate by DFA testing should be further tested by cell culture or animal inoculation methods.

Light Diagnostics Rabies DFA Reagent uses fluorescein-labeled monoclonal antibodies directed against the rabies nucleocapsid protein to detect the virus in infected tissue. The direct immunofluorescence assay requires incubation of a user-determined dilution of the reagent with suspected rabies-infected tissue such as brain (medulla, cerebellum, and hippocampus) and submaxillary salivary glands. If virus is present, the FITC-labeled monoclonal antibodies will bind to the nucleocapsid protein. Unbound antibody is removed by washing. The antigen-antibody complex is visualized using fluorescence microscopy. Positive reactions in infected tissue will appear as bright apple-green cytoplasmic inclusions or "dusting". A blend of monoclonal antibodies are used in the Light Diagnostics Rabies DFA reagent. These monoclonal antibodies are specific for the rabies virus nucleocapsid protein. The use of monoclonal antibodies ensures increased specificity of the reagent and reduces the risk of non-specific background or interference.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, extracting the requested information about acceptance criteria and the study proving device performance:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document defines "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices as the primary acceptance criterion. While no explicit numerical targets for sensitivity and specificity are stated as acceptance criteria, the study's results demonstrate 100% agreement, implying that the acceptance criterion was likely at least matching the performance of the predicate devices.

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Site 1: 454 specimens
  • Site 2: 1036 specimens
  • Total: 1490 specimens
• Data Provenance: The studies were performed at two sites in the United States: "Site 1 was on the west coast and Site 2 was in the south central part of the country." The data is retrospective, as it involves testing previously collected "specimens from 23 animal species" and "specimens from 25 animal species."

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

The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth. Instead, the "ground truth" for the clinical evaluation was established by two predicate devices: BECTON DICKINSON BBL® Anti-Rabies Globulin, Fluorescein Labeled and Centocor FITC Anti-Rabies Monoclonal Globulin.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document implies a direct comparison without explicit adjudication: "Complete agreement was seen between the commercially available in vitro diagnostic reagents and the Working Dilution of the FITC-conjugate monoclonal reagent." It directly compares the test device's results to the predicate devices' results. There is no mention of a formal adjudication process involving multiple human readers to resolve discrepancies.

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

No, a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study is a standalone performance evaluation of a diagnostic reagent (antibody) compared to existing predicate reagents, not an assessment of human reader performance with or without AI assistance. The document predates widespread AI in medical diagnostics (1998).

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

Yes, a standalone study was done. The "Light Diagnostics Rabies DFA Reagent" is a diagnostic reagent, and its performance was evaluated inherently in a "standalone" manner by directly comparing its reactive properties (antigen detection) to the predicate reagents on biological specimens. The "human-in-the-loop" aspect here refers to the laboratory technicians performing the DFA assay and reading the fluorescence microscope, but the device under evaluation itself is the reagent, not an automated algorithm or AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the clinical evaluation was based on the consensus/results of predicate diagnostic devices (BECTON DICKINSON BBL® Anti-Rabies Globulin, Fluorescein Labeled and Centocor FITC Anti-Rabies Monoclonal Globulin). In one instance at Site 1, "Laboratory inoculation of mice with samples from other animals resulted in a positivity rate of 66.7%," suggesting that in some cases, animal inoculation (a biological outcome/referral standard) was also used as a reference for some specimens, especially if the predicate devices were not conclusive or to establish the true positivity rate of samples before the predicate comparison. However, the performance metrics reported are relative to the predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

No explicit "training set" is mentioned in the context of machine learning. However, the monoclonal antibodies themselves were "trained" or rather developed and characterized using a panel of "twenty (20) variants of rabies virus," including various species and geographic strains. This characterization step serves a similar purpose to a training or development phase for the reagent's specificity.

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

For the "training set" (characterization of the monoclonal antibodies): The ground truth was established by testing the conjugated monoclonal antibodies against "twenty (20) variants of rabies virus." These variants were "differentiated using panels of monoclonal antibodies, and represent all of the epidemiologically significant street rabies variants." This implies that the identity of these rabies virus variants was already established through prior scientific methods (e.g., genetic sequencing, established serotyping using reference panels). The "strong affinity" of the test reagent to these known variants confirmed its broad reactivity.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Light Diagnostics SimulFluor™ Flu A/Flu B Immunofluorescence Assay is intended for the detection and identification of influenza A and influenza B in respiratory specimens such as throat, nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal aspirates, broncho-alveolar lavages from patients with febrile respiratory illness and following amplification of virus in cell culture. Specimens found to be negative on direct specimen examination must be confirmed with culture. For in vitro diagnostic use.

Light Diagnostics SimulFluor™ Flu A/Flu B Immunofluorescence Assay utilizes a single reagent for the simultaneous detection and identification of influenza A and influenza B. The primary component, specific for influenza A, will bind to influenza A nucleoprotein in influenza A-infected cells. The secondary component, specific for influenza B, will bind to influenza B nucleoprotein in influenza B-infected cells. Unbound reagent is removed by rinsing with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The complexes are visualized with a fluorescence microscope. The influenza A antigenantibody complex will exhibit an apple-green fluorescence and the influenza B antigenantibody complex will be yellow-gold. Uninfected cells stain a dull red due to the presence of Evans blue in the reagent. antibodies ensures increased specificity of the reagent and reduces the risk of non-specific background or interference.

The "Light Diagnostics SimulFluor™ Flu A/Flu B Immunofluorescence Assay" is intended for the detection and identification of influenza A and influenza B in respiratory specimens.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of specific sensitivity and specificity thresholds. However, the conclusion states that the device was shown to be "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, implying that its performance characteristics were deemed acceptable compared to established methods.

Here's a table summarizing the reported device performance in the clinical evaluation against the cultural gold standard for direct patient specimens:

The document also provides performance relative to predicate devices for culture confirmation, which consistently show 97.8% to 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity for both Influenza A and B, suggesting the device performs very well in this context.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • Site 1: 147 specimens
  • Site 2: 252 specimens
• Data Provenance: The data is from "clinical evaluation" using "patient specimens." The specific country of origin is not explicitly stated, but given the submission is to the FDA, it is highly likely to be the USA. The study design appears to be prospective or a cross-sectional study collecting current patient specimens for evaluation, as it compares the new device's results to a "culture confirmation" method for those specimens.

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 involved in establishing the ground truth. It refers to "culture confirmation" as the gold standard. For laboratory culture, the interpretation would typically be done by trained laboratory personnel (e.g., medical technologists, microbiologists), but their specific qualifications or number are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not mention an adjudication method for the test set. Given that "culture confirmation" is used as the ground truth, it implies that the culture results themselves were considered definitive without needing further independent adjudication of the initial test results.

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 study focuses on the standalone performance of the immunofluorescence assay against a gold standard (culture) and in comparison to predicate devices, not on human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

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

Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was done. The Light Diagnostics SimulFluor™ Flu A/Flu B Immunofluorescence Assay is a laboratory test, and its "performance characteristics" (sensitivity, specificity) were assessed directly. The "visualization with a fluorescence microscope" is a human-in-the-loop step, but the performance metrics are of the device (the reagent's ability to correctly stain infected cells) against the gold standard, implying a standalone evaluation of the diagnostic method itself, interpreted by a human.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for the clinical evaluation was culture confirmation. This means that after initial testing, specimens were cultured to grow and identify the influenza virus, providing a definitive diagnosis against which the immunofluorescence assay's results were compared.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a training set for the device. Immunofluorescence assays typically rely on the specificity of monoclonal antibodies rather than machine learning algorithms that require separate training and test sets. The "non-clinical evaluation" involving testing against various microorganisms and cell lines can be considered an initial validation or characterization, but not a "training set" in the machine learning sense.

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

Since there is no explicit training set in the context of the device's development as described, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable. The "non-clinical evaluation" involved challenging the conjugated monoclonal antibodies with known viruses and bacteria, where the "ground truth" was the identity of the specific microorganism.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Light Diagnostics Cytomegalovirus Direct Immunofluorescence Assay is intended for use in centrifugation enhanced shell vials in the qualitative detection and identification of immediate early antigen- of human CMV.

Light Diagnostics Cytomegalovirus Direct Immunofluorescence Assay (CMV DFA) uses the standard laboratory direct immunofluorescence technique for the culture confirmation of cytomegalovirus. The DFA is based on the principle of antigen identification using a detector monoclonal antibody conjugated to fluorescein isothiocyanate. The substrate consists of a slide prepared from the tissue cultured cells from a clinical specimen inoculum. Anti CMV FITC laheled antibody is applied to the substrate. The antibody will bind to specific antigen, if present, in the substrate. The fluorescein conjugated monoclonal antibody allows for visualization of the antigen / antibody complex by flucrescence microscopy. Mouse monoclonal antibody is used as the detector antibody in Light Diagnostics Cytomegalovirus Direct Immunofluorescence Assay. The use of monoclonal antibody ensures increased specificity and reduced non-specific interference. The monoclonal antibody is specific for a 68-72 kDa non-structural protein designated as immediate early (IE) antigen of human CMV.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Light Diagnostics Cytomegalovirus Direct Immunofluorescence Assay, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

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

   • Sample Size: 516 specimens.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical evaluation was performed. It's likely retrospective given the comparison to existing methods, but this is an inference. No country of origin is mentioned.

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

   • This information is not provided in the summary. The ground truth was established by comparison to "indirect immunofluorescence tests," which are themselves diagnostic methods, not necessarily expert review.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • This information is not provided in the summary. The comparison was made against "indirect immunofluorescence tests."

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:

   • An MRMC study was not performed, nor is AI involved. This is a diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted interpretation tool.

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

   • Yes, this is a standalone diagnostic assay. Its performance (sensitivity and specificity) was evaluated independently against another diagnostic method.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • The ground truth was established by comparison to indirect immunofluorescence tests for the detection and identification of CMV. This indicates using a previously established and accepted diagnostic method as the reference standard.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This information is not provided. This device is a diagnostic assay, not a machine learning model, so the concept of a "training set" for model development isn't directly applicable in the same way. The development involved characterizing the monoclonal antibody and testing it with reference virus strains and clinical isolates, but a specific "training set size" is not mentioned.

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

   • As mentioned above, the concept of a "training set" for model development isn't directly applicable. For the development/characterization of the assay components, the ground truth was established by:
     • Reacting the anti-CMV antibody with reference virus strains and clinical isolates (implying known CMV status for these samples).
     • Evaluating cross-reactivity with "a variety of viral pathogens and host cell controls" and "a variety of microorganisms" (implying known non-CMV status for these samples).

Ask a specific question about this device

Light Diagnostics Varicella-zoster virus Direct Immunofluorescence Assay is intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the qualitative detection of VZV from vesicular smears and in cell culture viral isolation and confirmation.

Light Diagnostics Varicella-zoster virus direct Immunofluorescence DFA) uses the standard laboratory direct Assav (VZV immunofluorescence technique for the culture confirmation and direct specimen detection of Varicella-zoster virus. The DFA is based on the principle of antigen identification using a detector monoclonal antibody conjugated to fluorescein isothiocyanate. The substrate consists of a slide prepared from a direct specimen vesicular smear or the tissue cultured cells from a clinical specimen inoculum. Anti VZV FITC labeled antibody is applied to the substrate. The antibody will bind to specific antigen, if present, in the substrate. The fluorescein conjugated monoclonal antibody allows for visualization of the antigen / antibody complex by fluorescence microscopy.

A blend of mouse monoclonal antibodies are used as detector antibodies in Light Diagnostics Varicella-zoster virus direct Immunofluorescence Assay. The monoclonal antibodies are specific for the glycoprotein gp I or the immediate early antigen of VZV. The use of monoclonal antibodies ensures increased specificity and reduced non-specific interference.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Light Diagnostics Varicella-zoster Virus Direct Immunofluorescence Assay, submitted in 1996. This summary predates the current rigorous standards for AI/ML device evaluations and thus many of the requested elements (especially those related to AI/ML specific studies, ground truth establishment, and multi-reader studies) are not applicable or not detailed in the provided document.

Here's an analysis of the available information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 205 specimens
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It is a "clinical evaluation," implying the data is likely prospective at the time of the study, collected from patients presenting to a clinical setting.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The general practice for such assays is that the "ground truth" would be established by the comparator device (Meridian Diagnostics, Inc. Merifluor kit) or potentially by a combination of clinical diagnosis and culture, but the role of human experts in establishing this specific ground truth is not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not provided in the document. Given the nature of a direct immunofluorescence assay comparison, it's possible adjudication wasn't explicitly modeled in the same way as an AI/ML algorithm requiring human review. The comparison was against another established in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not mentioned or conducted. This device is a manual laboratory assay, 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

The device itself is a standalone diagnostic assay. It is not an algorithm, and there is no "human-in-the-loop" AI component. The performance reported (sensitivity and specificity) is the standalone performance of the assay.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth was established by comparison to the Meridian Diagnostics, Inc. Merifluor VZV in vitro diagnostic kit. This implies that the Merifluor kit's results were used as the reference standard for the clinical evaluation. It's also implied that culture confirmation was a part of the process, as the device is for "culture confirmation and direct specimen detection."

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/provided. This is an immunoassay, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "training" of the assay involves the development and characterization of the monoclonal antibodies (as mentioned under "Nonclinical evaluation"), but this doesn't involve a distinct "training set" of patient data as understood in AI/ML.

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

This information is not applicable/provided for the reasons stated in point 8. The development process involved "characterization for their ability to detect Varicella-zoster virus" using "reference virus strains and clinical isolates," and evaluation for "cross reactivity to a variety of viral pathogens and host cell controls." This is the process for ensuring the specificity and reactivity of the antibodies, rather than establishing ground truth for a training dataset.

Ask a specific question about this device