Search Results

The MESACUP BP180 or BP230 TEST is a semi-quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of anti BP180 or BP230 antibodies in human serum. The MESACUP TESTS are intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aid in the diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. Patients with Bullous Pemphigoid are known to have either BP180 or BP230 or both types of antibodies in serum. It is recommended that each patient be tested for BP180 and BP230 antibodies.

BP means Bullous pemphigoid. Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a chronic blistering of the skin. It ranges from mildly itchy welts to severe blisters and infection, and may affect a small area of the body or be widespread. The vast majority of those affected are elderly, but it has been seen at all ages. It is an autoimmune disorder, meaning it is caused when the body's immune system malfunctions. The immune system is meant to defend the body against bacteria, viruses, and disease, but instead produces against healthy tissue, cells and organs. Some patients with BP have other autoimmune diseases such diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. Various other factors have been reported to play a role in triggering BP. These include drugs (furosemide, penicillin's), mechanical trauma, and physical traumas (burns from radiation, sun or heat). The BP180 Elisa kit is designed to detect the BP180 protein. The related BP230 Elisa kit is designed to detect the autoantigen BP230, also known as bullous pemphigoid antigen.

This appears to be a 510(k) summary for an ELISA kit, which is a laboratory diagnostic device, not an AI/ML powered device. As such, many of the requested categories (like MRMC studies, number of experts for ground truth, sample size for training set, etc.) are not applicable in the context of this traditional in-vitro diagnostic device submission.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for MESACUP BP180 ELISA Kit and MESACUP BP230 ELISA Kit

The provided 510(k) summary (K071961) focuses on establishing "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices, rather than defining specific quantitative performance acceptance criteria in the way a novel AI/ML device might. The core "acceptance criteria" here is that the device is "comparably safe and effective" and has "similar indications" to the predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document states "The results of clinical and nonclinical testing indicates that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate devices and methods." However, specific sample sizes for clinical or nonclinical test sets are not provided in this 510(k) summary. The summary does not mention country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

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 510(k) summary. For an ELISA kit, ground truth typically comes from a reference method or clinical diagnosis, but details about expert involvement are not included here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not applicable and not done for this type of in-vitro diagnostic device (ELISA kit). MRMC studies are typically performed for imaging or other diagnostic devices where human readers interpret results. This is a laboratory test where the result is quantitative or semi-quantitative, not interpreted by human readers in the same way.

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

This is an ELISA kit, not an algorithm. Therefore, the concept of a "standalone" algorithm performance study is not applicable. The device itself is the "standalone" diagnostic tool.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The 510(k) summary does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used. However, for a diagnostic test like this, the ground truth for clinical studies would typically be established based on:

• Clinical Diagnosis: Established by a physician based on the patient's symptoms, physical examination, and other laboratory/histopathological findings consistent with bullous pemphigoid.
• Reference Methods: Comparison to established "gold standard" or highly accepted diagnostic methods for detecting BP180 or BP230 antibodies (e.g., Western blot, immunofluorescence, or other validated assays).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI is not applicable here. This is a traditional ELISA diagnostic kit, not an algorithm that learns from data.

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

As there is no "training set" in the AI/ML sense, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The anti-RNA Polymerase III ELISA Kit is a semi-quantitative, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of anti-RNA Polymerase III antibodies in human serum. The test result is used as an aid in the diagnosis of Systemic Sclerosis (SSc) in conjunction with the clinical and other laboratory findings. The anti-RNA Polymerase III ELISA Kit is intended for in-vitro diagnostic use.

This device is an aid to the diagnosis of SSc. Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is an autoimmune disease characterized by microvascular damage and fibrosis of the skin and internal organs. RNA polymerase(RNAP) I, II and III are major targets of autoantibody responses in SSc patients. Each RNAP catalyzes transcription of unique sets of genes: RNAP I transcribes ribosomal RNA genes, RNAP II transcribes all protein coding genes and several small nuclear RNA genes, and RNAP III transcribes genes that produce small stable RNAs including 5S and transfer RNAs. Anti-RNAP I and anti-RNAP III antibodies are almost always present together (anti-RNAP I/II), and some sera contain anti-RNAP II antibody as well. Anti-RNAP I/II antibodies are the most common SSc related antibodies in white North American patients with SSc and is associated with diffuse cutaneous involvement, a high frequency of "renal crisis", and high mortality. In addition, it has been shown that some SSc sera contain autoantibodies recognizing RNAP II but not RNAP I or III. Antibodies to RNAP II are also present in sera from some patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or overlap syndrome. PRINCIPLE: The anti-RNA Polymerase III ELISA Kit measures anti-RNAP III antibodies present in the serum by ELISA. Diluted Calibrators and patient serum are added to microwell coated with RNAP III antigens, allowing anti-RNAP III antibodies to react with the immobilized antigen (Sample incubation). After washing to remove any unbound serum proteins, horseradish peroxidase conjugated anti human IgG is added and incubated (Conjugate incubation). Following another washing step, the peroxidase substrate is added and incubated for an additional period of time (Substrate incubation). Acid solution is then added to each well to terminate the enzyme reaction and to stabilize the color development. The assay can be quantified by measuring the reaction photometrically and plotting the results.

The provided text doesn't contain specific acceptance criteria with quantifiable metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) or a detailed study description with performance metrics for the MBL Anti-RNA Polymerase III ELISA Kit. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on general characteristics and clinical utility.

However, based on the information provided, here's what can be extracted and inferred regarding acceptance criteria and the study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "sensitivity must be >X%"). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the claim of substantial equivalence to predicate devices and the performance characteristics established by comparison with a research method (Immunoprecipitation).

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size used for the clinical trial or test set. It only mentions "clinical trial."
• Data Provenance: The document does not state the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. It just refers to "clinical and non-clinical testing data."

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

• Number of Experts: This information is not provided.
• Qualifications of Experts: This information is not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided.

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

• The document does not indicate that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done.
• It refers to "comparison with a research method, Immunoprecipitation, AND K972145, HEP-2000 FLUORESCENT ANA-RO TEST SYSTEM." This suggests a direct comparison of the device's results against a gold standard/reference method and a predicate device, rather than an evaluation of human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance assessment was done. The entire premise of an ELISA kit is to provide a diagnostic result from the assay itself. The "clinical trial via comparison with a research method, Immunoprecipitation" directly evaluates the performance of the kit (the "algorithm only") against a known reference. There is no human-in-the-loop component mentioned for interpreting the ELISA results beyond standard laboratory practices.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The primary ground truth used for performance validation was a research method, Immunoprecipitation. This is commonly considered a highly specific and sensitive "gold standard" for detecting autoantibodies in research and some clinical settings.
• Additionally, comparison was made against K972145, HEP-2000 FLUORESCENT ANA-RO TEST SYSTEM, which is an indirect fluorescent antibody test for antinuclear antibodies, likely serving as another comparator or a secondary form of reference for general ANA detection, although Immunoprecipitation is the more specific reference for anti-RNA Polymerase III.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a training set size. This is common for traditional in-vitro diagnostic kits like ELISA, where algorithms are not "trained" in the machine learning sense. The kit's performance characteristics are inherent to its biochemical design and manufacturing, and validated through clinical trials, without a distinct "training set" of patient data for algorithm development.

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

• As there's no mention of a "training set" in the context of an algorithm, there's no information on how its ground truth was established. The development of the ELISA kit (e.g., choice of antigens, antibodies, assay conditions) would be based on scientific understanding of anti-RNA Polymerase III antibodies and their detection, rather than an iterative training process with labeled data. The validation (test set) uses Immunoprecipitation as the ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device