Search Results

VALIDATE PSA Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Kit solutions are intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of linearity, calibration verification and verification of reportable range for the following analytes: Total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and free prostate-specific antigen (fPSA) on automated systems.

Quality control material (assayed and un-assayed)*
Each VALIDATE® PSA Calibration / Linearity Test Kit contains purified chemicals in a human serum base. Multiple levels are provided to establish the relationship between theoretical and actual performance of each of the included analytes.

This document describes the VALIDATE® PSA Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Kit, a device intended for in vitro diagnostic use to verify calibration and linearity of automated systems for measuring Total Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) and free Prostate-Specific Antigen (fPSA).

Here's an analysis of the provided information relating to acceptance criteria and the study:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document describes the device as behaving "in a manner suitable for the evaluation of calibration, verification of reportable range, and the linear response of the listed analytes over the ranges tested when compared to the predicate device." However, specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., % bias, correlation coefficients, or specific ranges of linearity) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed quantitative acceptance criteria for its own performance.

Therefore, the table below reflects what can be inferred.

Study Details

The provided text is a 510(k) summary, which often focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than providing a detailed study report. As such, many of the requested details about the study are not explicitly present in the provided document.

Here's what can be extracted or inferred:

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The description mentions "Multiple levels are provided to establish the relationship between theoretical and actual performance of each of the included analytes." This suggests that a series of concentrations were tested, but the number of replicates or distinct samples is not specified.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but given that it's a submission to the FDA by a US company (Maine Standards Company), it implies the study was likely conducted with data relevant to the U.S. market. The study is retrospective in the sense that the results were generated and then submitted to the FDA.

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

   • Not applicable / Not stated. For calibration verification kits, "ground truth" is typically established by the known concentrations of the analytes in the manufactured control materials, rather than expert interpretation of a biological sample. The accuracy of these known concentrations would be verified through reference methods and quality control procedures during manufacturing.

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

   • Not applicable / Not stated. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for studies where subjective interpretation (e.g., medical imaging) forms the basis of ground truth. For a linearity/calibration verification kit, the assessment is based on quantifiable measurements against expected values.

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 type of study is completely irrelevant for a calibration verification/linearity test kit. MRMC studies are used for evaluating diagnostic aids, often involving human interpretation of images or other data with and without AI assistance. This device is a quality control material.

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

   • Not applicable / Not stated in these terms. The "performance" of this device is its inherent chemical and physical stability and its ability to provide accurate and linear responses across different analytes when measured by automated systems. The study likely involves running the kit on various automated systems and comparing the results to expected values and to the predicate device's performance. It's an "algorithm only" in the sense that the automated systems are the "algorithms" that process the kit, but the kit itself isn't an algorithm.

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

   • The "ground truth" for this type of device is the assigned target values/concentrations for each analyte at each level of the kit, established during the manufacturing process through precise analytical methods and verified against reference standards (e.g., gravimetric measurements, certified reference materials).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not stated. This device is not an AI algorithm that requires a "training set." It is a physical chemical product.

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

   • Not applicable / Not stated. As above, it's not an AI algorithm requiring a training set. The "ground truth" for the device's performance is tied to the manufacturing and characterization of the control material itself.

Ask a specific question about this device

VALIDATE® VIT D Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Kit solutions are intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of linearity, calibration and verification of reportable range for the following analyte: total 25 (OH) vitamin D (VIT D).

Each VALIDATE® VIT D Calibration / Linearity Test Kit contains purified chemicals in a human serum base. Multiple levels are provided to establish the relationship between theoretical and actual performance of each of the included analytes.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the detailed information needed to answer your request about the acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets them.

The document is a 510(k) summary for the VALIDATE® VIT D Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Kit. It describes the device, its intended use, and states that it is "as safe and effective as the predicate device." However, it does not include the following crucial information that you asked for:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes used for the test set.
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• Information on a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, including effect size.
• Information on a standalone (algorithm only) performance study.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.).
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

This document serves as a regulatory submission indicating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a detailed scientific study report outlining performance metrics against specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MSC Lipid Control is intended for use as an assayed quality control material to monitor the ongoing precision of clinical laboratory systems for the following analytes: High-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C), Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C), Total Cholesterol (CHOL), Triglycerides (TRIG), Apolipoprotein AI (Apo AI), and Apolipoprotein B (Apo B), on instruments listed in the value sheet.

The MSC Lipid Control is a human serum based liquid quality control containing stabilized HDL-C, LDL-C, CHOL, TRIG, Apo AI, and Apo B of human origin.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the "MSC Lipid Control" device, which is a quality control material. It details the device's intended use and substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, the text does not contain information about acceptance criteria, a specific study design to prove device performance against acceptance criteria, or any details related to AI/algorithm performance.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the following sections based on the provided input:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (Not provided in the text)
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (Not applicable, as this is a quality control material, not an AI/diagnostic device with a test set in that context. The text also does not provide details on specific testing methodology for establishing equivalence beyond general statements.)
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (Not applicable/provided)
4. Adjudication method (Not applicable/provided)
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, as this is not an AI/diagnostic device)
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done (Not applicable, as this is not an AI/algorithm)
7. The type of ground truth used (Not applicable/provided)
8. The sample size for the training set (Not applicable, as this is not an AI/algorithm)
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established (Not applicable, as this is not an AI/algorithm)

The provided documentation is for a Class I medical device (quality control material), whose approval is based on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than explicit acceptance criteria demonstrated through a detailed clinical or performance study as would be expected for a diagnostic or AI-driven device. The equivalence for this type of device is typically established through analytical performance (e.g., stability, homogeneity, assigned values) relative to the predicate, but specific details of such studies are not provided in this 510(k) summary. The summary states that "the performance of MSC Lipid Control is substantially equivalent in form and function to the predicate devices for its stated intended use." This is the general "proof" for this type of submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

Validate® GC Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Sets are intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of linearity, calibration verification and verification of reportable range in automated, semi automated, and manual chemistry systems. See attached Package Insert labeling for all analytes claimed.

VALIDATE® GC Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Sets are human and aqueous based calibration verification materials containing multiple levels used to establish the relationship between theoretical operation and actual performance of the included analytes. There exists a linear relationship among each set of solutions.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "VALIDATE® GC Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Sets." This device is a quality control material intended for in vitro diagnostic use to determine linearity, calibration verification, and reportable range in chemistry systems.

It is crucial to understand that this submission is for a quality control material, not an AI device or an imaging device. Therefore, the concepts of human readers, AI assistance, complex imaging, and expert adjudication (as typically applied in imaging or AI-driven diagnostic tools) are not applicable here. The "device" in this context is a set of chemical solutions with known properties, and its performance is evaluated based on its chemical stability, consistency, and how accurately it can verify the calibration and linearity of laboratory instruments.

Given this context, I will address the questions as they pertain to a quality control material and the information provided in the 510(k) summary. Many of the questions are specifically designed for AI/imaging devices and cannot be directly answered from the provided text for a chemical control.

Here's the analysis:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for VALIDATE® GC Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Sets

The core of the study for this type of device lies in demonstrating its equivalence to existing predicate devices and its ability to accurately assess the linearity and calibration of various chemistry analyzers.

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

The provided 510(k) summary does not include a detailed table of specific acceptance criteria or reported device performance data. It states:

• "The VALIDATE® GC Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Sets behave in a manner suitable for the evaluation of calibration, verification of reportable range, and the linear response of the listed analytes over the ranges tested when compared to the predicate devices."
• "VALIDATE® GC Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Sets are as safe, as effective, and perform as well as or better than the predicate device."

Such specific data would typically be found in the full 510(k) submission, including the package insert and detailed study reports, which are not part of this summary excerpt. For a calibration verification material, acceptance criteria would typically include:
* Linearity: The observed values for each level across the concentration range should demonstrate a linear relationship. This is often assessed by linear regression analysis, with criteria for correlation coefficient (e.g., R > 0.99) and acceptable deviation from linearity (e.g., % bias at specific points).
* Accuracy/Bias: The expected values of the control material should be accurately recovered by the chemistry systems, often compared to target values with a specified allowable bias.
* Stability: The material must maintain its stated characteristics over its shelf life and during use.
* Matrix Effects: Minimal interference from the control material matrix on various analytical methods.

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

The summary does not specify the sample size (e.g., number of runs, number of instruments, number of analyte levels tested on each instrument) or the provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) of the data. For this type of device, a "test set" would refer to the various levels of the calibration verification material across different analytes, tested on multiple instrument platforms.

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 question is not applicable to a chemical quality control material. "Ground truth" for these materials is established through rigorous manufacturing processes, formulation, and analytical testing by qualified chemists and laboratory personnel using highly accurate reference methods and/or validated assays. It's not typically established by clinical "experts" in the sense of physicians or radiologists.

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

This question is not applicable to a chemical quality control material. Adjudication methods like 2+1 are used for human interpretation of clinical data (e.g., image reading) where disagreement among experts might occur. The "truth" for a chemical control is determined by its inherent chemical properties and the accuracy of its manufacture and assay.

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 question is completely inapplicable. MRMC studies and "human readers improving with AI" are concepts specific to AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or similar interpretation tasks. This device is a chemical control, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool.

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

This question is completely inapplicable. There is no "algorithm" in the sense of AI or software for this chemical control material. The device itself is a physical substance.

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

As mentioned in #3, "ground truth" for this device would be established by:

• Reference Methods: Highly accurate and precise laboratory methods used to assign target values to the various levels of the control material.
• Gravimetric and Volumetric Standards: Precise measurements during formulation.
• Interlaboratory Consensus: In some cases, target values might be confirmed through round-robin studies among multiple qualified laboratories.
• Traceability: Ensuring the values are traceable to internationally recognized reference materials or methods.

It is not based on expert consensus in a clinical diagnostic sense, pathology, or outcomes data.

8. The sample size for the training set

This concept is not applicable here. A "training set" refers to data used to train a machine learning model. This device is a chemical control material, not a machine learning algorithm. Its development involves chemical formulation and analytical testing, not statistical training data sets in the AI sense.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of this chemical control material.

Ask a specific question about this device

VALIDATE® CM2 Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Set solutions are intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of linearity, calibration verification and verification of reportable range in automated, semi automated, and manual chemistry systems. Each VALIDATE® CM2 Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Set consists of two sets of bottles. Set 1 contains BNP, hs-CRP, Troponin-1, and MPO. Set 2 contains NT-proBNP, hs-CRP, Troponin-T and MPO.

Quality control material (assayed and unassayed). VALIDATE® CM2 Calibration / Linearity Test Sets are human based calibration verification materials containing multiple levels used to establish the relationship between theoretical operation and actual performance of the included analytes. There exists a linear relationship among each set of solutions.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device called "VALIDATE® CM2 Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Set." This device is a quality control material used to verify calibration and linearity of chemistry analyzers, rather than an AI-powered diagnostic device or an imaging device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories in the prompt (e.g., sample size for the test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size, how ground truth for training set was established) are not applicable to this type of device and the information available in the provided 510(k) summary.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding acceptance criteria and device performance based on the provided text.

Here's a summary tailored to the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the VALIDATE® CM2 are implicitly tied to demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to its predicate device, the VALIDATE® CM1, in terms of performance for establishing linearity and verifying calibration. The key performance comparison is based on the ability of the CM2 set to function as intended on various chemistry analyzers for the specified analytes, showing a linear relationship across the different levels.

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

• Sample size: Not explicitly stated as a "sample size" in the conventional sense for patient data. The study used "pre-production lots" of the VALIDATE® CM2 Test Sets. The number of individual test sets or runs conducted is not specified.
• Data provenance: Not directly described, but the study involved testing on various commercial chemistry analyzers: Beckman Access II, Beckman Immage 800, Beckman Synchron DxC with Diazyme reagent, Roche e411, and Roche Integra 400+. This implies the testing was conducted in a laboratory setting, likely in the US, given the submission to the FDA. The study is prospective in the sense that the new device (CM2 pre-production lots) was developed and then tested.

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

Not applicable. This device is a calibration verification material. Its "ground truth" is its known concentration levels and its ability to demonstrate linearity on analytical instruments, rather than diagnostic interpretations from experts.

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

Not applicable. There is no expert adjudication for this type of device. Performance is objectively measured by the analytical instruments.

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 is not an AI or imaging device with human readers.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm. The "performance" is the material's function in an in vitro diagnostic context on automated analyzers, which inherently involves the "human-in-the-loop" in setting up the test and interpreting results from the analyzer.

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

The "ground truth" for this device would be the assigned, analytically-derived target values for each level within the VALIDATE® CM2 test sets and the theoretical linear relationship between these levels. These values are established through rigorous analytical methods (e.g., reference methods, gravimetric dilutions, primary calibrator traceability) during the manufacturing and characterization of the quality control material. The study then verifies that the instrument measures these levels linearly and accurately.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is not an AI algorithm that requires a "training set."

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

Each VALIDATE® THY Calibration Verification / Linearity Test Set consists of two sets of bottles, a THY Set and a FT4 Set. The THY set consists of five (5) levels of the following four analytes: triiodothyronine (T3), thyroxine (T4), human thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), and cortisol, and the FT4 set consists of five (5) levels containing Free T4.

VALIDATE® THY Calibration / Linearity Test Set solutions are intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of linearity, calibration and verification of reportable range in automated, semi automated, and manual chemistry systems.

Quality control material (assayed and un-assayed)

VALIDATE®THY Calibration Verification Test Sets are human serum based calibration verification / linearity materials containing multiple levels used to establish the relationship between theoretical operation and actual performance of the included analytes. Each test set consists of one bottle each of Levels 1 through 5. One bottle of Base Matrix is also included. There exists a linear relationship among Levels 1 through 5.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the VALIDATE® THY Calibration Verification Test Set:

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary, which aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily to independently prove the device meets specific performance criteria as a new, de novo device might. Therefore, the information regarding "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" will be interpreted in the context of demonstrating substantial equivalence.

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria for the new device as separate from its predicate. Instead, it states that the device is "substantially equivalent in form and function to the predicate device for its stated intended use." This implies that the 'acceptance criteria' for the new device are inherently met if its performance is comparable to the predicate device, which is already legally marketed.

Therefore, we can infer the "acceptance criteria" are the established performance characteristics (e.g., linearity, calibration verification, reportable range verification) demonstrated by the predicate device, and the "reported device performance" is that the new device functions equivalently for these purposes.

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

The 510(k) summary does not provide details about a specific test set, its sample size, or data provenance used to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The summary focuses on the intended use and device description, and then makes a general statement about equivalence. In such submissions, detailed performance data is often summarized or referenced rather than fully detailed in the publicly available 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 type of information (number of experts, their qualifications, and their role in establishing ground truth) is not applicable or stated in this 510(k) summary. This device is a quality control material used for analytical performance verification (linearity, calibration, reportable range). The 'ground truth' in this context would likely be established through robust analytical methods, highly precise reference materials, and established metrological traceability, rather than expert review of clinical cases.

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

Not applicable or stated. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of medical images or patient outcomes, often with multiple expert readers. This is a quality control material for laboratory instruments, where analytical rigor replaces such human-centric adjudication.

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 or stated. MRMC studies are used to evaluate diagnostic imaging devices or AI-assisted diagnostic tools where human readers are involved in making clinical decisions. This device is a calibration verification material for in vitro diagnostic assays, not a diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted reading device.

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

Not applicable or stated. This is not an algorithm or AI-based device. It is a physical chemical quality control material.

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

The document does not explicitly state the type of "ground truth" used. However, for a calibration verification and linearity material, the 'ground truth' for the analytes (T3, T4, TSH, Cortisol, Free T4) would typically be established through:

• Reference measurement procedures: Highly accurate and precise analytical methods, often traceable to international reference standards.
• Certified reference materials: Materials with assigned values derived from definitive methods.
• Gravimetric/Volumetric preparation: Precise preparation of the different levels (1-5) to create a known linear relationship across concentrations.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable or stated. As this is a quality control material and not an AI/ML or a complex diagnostic algorithm, there isn't a "training set" in the traditional sense. The device is manufactured to specific specifications and then analytically tested for its characteristics.

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

Not applicable or stated. See point 8. The 'ground truth' for the material itself (i.e., the actual concentration of analytes at each level and their linearity) would be established through the manufacturing process and subsequent analytical characterization using highly precise and accurate laboratory methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MSC Lipid Control is intended for use as an assayed control material to monitor the ongoing precision of clinical laboratory analysis for Cholesterol, Triglycerides, HDL Cholesterol, and LDL Cholesterol. This material is intended for use on automated, semi-automated, and manual clinical chemistry analyzer systems.

The MSC Lipid Control is a human serum based liquid control containing stabilized Cholesterol, Triglycerides, HDL Cholesterol and LDL Cholesterol of human origin.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "MSC Lipid Control," which is a quality control material for clinical laboratory analysis of lipids. It does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for test or training sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, multi-reader multi-case studies, standalone algorithm performance, or the type of ground truth used for AI-driven devices.

This document describes a traditional medical device (a control material) and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a novel device requiring extensive performance studies with AI or human readers. Therefore, the requested information elements are not applicable to the provided context.

Ask a specific question about this device

VALIDATE® SP1 Calibration Verification Test Set solutions are intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of linearity, calibration and verification of reportable range in automated, semi-automated and manual chemistry systems for the following analytes: Immunoglobulin A (IgA), Immunoglobulin G (IgG), Immunoglobulin M (IgM), Complement C3 (C3), Complement C4 (C4), c1-Antitrypsin (AAT), and Transferrin (TRF).

VALIDATE® SP1 Calibration Verification Test Sets are human serum calibration verification / linearity materials containing multiple levels used to establish the relationship between theoretical operation and actual performance of the included analytes. Each test set consists of one bottle each of five (5) levels. Each bottle of Levels 1 through 5 contains 1.0 milliliter. There exists a linear relationship between Levels 1 through 5.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "VALIDATE® SP1 Calibration Verification Test Set". This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and receiving FDA clearance. It does not contain details about specific acceptance criteria for a device's performance, nor does it describe a study proving the device meets such criteria in the way a typical clinical or technical performance study would for a diagnostic or AI-powered device.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required in your request about acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth details. The submission is for a quality control material which functions differently from devices that diagnose or interpret medical information.

Here's why the input does not contain the requested information:

• Type of Device: The device is a "Multi-Analyte Controls, All Kinds (Assayed and Unassayed)," specifically a "Calibration Verification Test Set." This type of device is used to check the accuracy and linearity of other diagnostic instruments, not to perform a diagnostic test itself.
• Nature of 510(k) Summary: A 510(k) summary for this kind of device typically focuses on demonstrating that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to an already legally marketed predicate device. This often involves showing similar materials, intended use, and performance characteristics (like stability), without necessarily having a formal "acceptance criteria table" and a study demonstrating meeting those criteria in the context of clinical accuracy or an AI model's performance.
• Missing Details: There is no mention of "test sets" in the context of patient data, "experts" to establish ground truth from medical images/data, "adjudication," "MRMC studies," or "standalone performance" of an algorithm. These concepts are relevant for diagnostic devices that process and interpret patient data, especially AI/ML-enabled ones.

In summary, the provided document does not contain the information you requested because it describes a quality control material, not a diagnostic device that would typically have the kind of performance study you're asking about.

Ask a specific question about this device

VALIDATE Thyroid Calibration Verification Test Set solutions are for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of linearity, calibration and verification of reportable range in chemistry systems for the following analytes: Triiodothyronine (T3), Thyroxine (T4), human Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH), and Cortisol.

VALIDATE Thyroid Calibration Test Sets are human serum based calibration verification / linearity materials containing multiple levels used to establish the relationship between theoretical operation and actual performance of the included analytes. Each test set consists of one bottle each of six (6) levels including zero. Each bottle of Levels 0 through 5 contains 3.0 milliliters. There exists a linear relationship among each set of solutions.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the VALIDATE® Thyroid Calibration Verification Test Set. It is a pre-market notification for an in vitro diagnostic device, and as such, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a detailed study with acceptance criteria and device performance metrics in the way a clinical trial or algorithm validation study would.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria, study design, expert ground truth, and training data are not typically included in a 510(k) summary for this type of device. The document primarily confirms that the new device performs similarly to an already approved device.

However, I can extract the information that is present:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for the device's performance in the typical sense (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds). Instead, the performance is demonstrated through its "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device in terms of "form and function."

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of patient samples. The device itself consists of "one bottle each of six (6) levels including zero." These levels are used to test the linearity and calibration of chemistry systems, not to diagnose patients.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical patient data. The "test set" in this case refers to the six levels of the VALIDATE Thyroid Calibration Verification Test Set itself, which is designed to be run on chemistry systems. The study involves demonstrating the performance of this control material, not data from a patient cohort. It is an in vitro diagnostic device.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable. The "ground truth" for a calibration verification material is its known analytical concentration at different levels. This is typically established through precise analytical methods and quality control procedures during manufacturing, not by human expert consensus or interpretation of patient data.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. The "test set" (the calibration verification material) has known values. Its performance is evaluated by how accurately and linearly a chemistry system reads those known values.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for devices that involve human readers interpreting medical images or data (e.g., radiologists interpreting AI-assisted mammograms). The VALIDATE Thyroid Calibration Verification Test Set is an in vitro diagnostic quality control material; it does not involve human readers interpreting patient cases in the same way.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not applicable as this is not an algorithm or AI-based device. It is a physical chemical solution designed for calibration verification. Its "performance" is whether it exhibits the expected linear relationship across its different concentration levels when measured by a diagnostic instrument.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth for this device would be the assigned target values/concentrations of each of the six levels of the calibration verification material, established through precise analytical methods and quality control during manufacturing. These are known, reference values.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. This device is a chemical reagent, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set Establishment: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The VALIDATE® Cardiac Marker Calibration Verification Test Sets are used by trained laboratory professionals for quantitatively verifying calibration, validating reportable ranges, and determining linearity in automated, semi-automated and manual chemistry systems for CK-MB and Myoglobin.

VALIDATE Cardiac Markers Calibration Verification Test Sets are human based calibration verification materials containing multiple levels used to establish the relationship between theoretical operation and actual performance of the included analytes. There exists a linear relationship among each set of solutions.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the "VALIDATE® Cardiac Markers Calibration Verification Test Set". This device is a quality control material intended to verify calibration, validate reportable ranges, and determine linearity in chemistry systems for CK-MB and Myoglobin. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing performance against specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study.

Therefore, many of the requested elements (acceptance criteria, study design, expert qualifications, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this type of document, which is primarily a regulatory filing for an in vitro diagnostic quality control material.

However, I can provide the available information based on the text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in terms of accuracy, precision, sensitivity, or specificity. Instead, the primary "acceptance criterion" for this regulatory submission is "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices. This means that the device must perform similarly enough to a legally marketed device that it does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Reported Device Performance:

Note: For in vitro diagnostic quality control materials, "performance" is often demonstrated by showing that the material behaves predictably and consistently across a range of values, allowing for the verification of an instrument's calibration and linearity. The specific numerical accuracy or precision of the new material is typically compared to that of existing, similar products rather than to a fixed clinical endpoint.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document mentions "preproduction lots of VALIDATE® CM1 Calibration Verification Test Sets". However, it does not specify the number of individual vials, batches, or replicates used in the comparative testing.
• Data Provenance: The study appears to be an internal, prospective validation performed by Maine Standards Company. There is no mention of country of origin of the data beyond the company's location in Maine, USA. The study design is not a traditional "test set" in the clinical sense, but rather a laboratory comparison.

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

Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of this device refers to the known, assigned values of the analytes in the control material for calibration verification. These values are established through rigorous analytical testing and metrology, not by expert consensus in the way a diagnostic image might be. The document does not specify the number or qualifications of the analytical chemists or metrology experts involved in assigning these values.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As this is not a diagnostic device involving interpretation, there is no need for adjudication of results by human experts. The "results" are analytical measurements.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

No. An MRMC study is not applicable for this type of in vitro diagnostic quality control material. MRMC studies are typically used to assess the effectiveness of diagnostic devices (e.g., imaging AI) where multiple human readers interpret cases.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical diagnostic control material, not an algorithm or software. It is designed to be used with human-operated laboratory equipment.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this device is the assigned analyte concentrations within the calibration verification materials. These values are established through a robust process of analytical measurement, often traceable to reference materials and methods, rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data. The document implies these values are "lot specific analyte values" provided with the product.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a physical in vitro diagnostic control material, not an AI/ML algorithm or system that requires a "training set."

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device