Search Results

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