Search Results

The InView™ multi-use test provides quantitative measurement of the percent of glycated hemoglobin (%HbA1c, %A1C) levels in whole blood samples. The test is for home use and professional use for monitoring glycemic control in people with diabetes.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called InView™, a glycosylated hemoglobin assay. It does not contain the specific details about acceptance criteria or the study that proves the device meets those criteria. My analysis of the given text is as follows:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not present in the provided document. The document is a regulatory clearance letter, not a detailed study report.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): This information is not present in the provided document.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience): This information is not present in the provided document.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: This information is not present in the provided document.

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 device is a quantitative assay for glycated hemoglobin, not an imaging device or an AI diagnostic tool that human readers would use in conjunction with. Therefore, an MRMC study and analysis of human reader improvement with AI assistance are not applicable and not mentioned.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: The InView™ is described as a "multi-use test" for measuring %HbA1c levels. It is presented as a standalone device ("algorithm only" equivalent for an in-vitro diagnostic) in the sense that it provides a quantitative measurement. The FDA clearance confirms its performance for "home use and professional use for monitoring glycemic control in people with diabetes." This implies a standalone performance without a human-in-the-loop interacting with an AI algorithm for diagnosis. However, specific performance metrics are not given.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): This information is not present in the provided document. For a quantitative assay like HbA1c, the ground truth would typically be established by a reference method or a highly accurate laboratory assay.

8. The sample size for the training set: This information is not present in the provided document.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: This information is not present in the provided document.

Summary: The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter confirms that the InView™ glycated hemoglobin assay is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. It states the intended use as quantitative measurement of %HbA1c for home and professional use in monitoring glycemic control. However, this document does not contain the detailed technical or clinical study data (such as acceptance criteria, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or performance metrics) that would typically be found in the 510(k) submission itself or a comprehensive study report. The letter is a regulatory approval, not a scientific publication of study results.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AlcNow® test provides quantitative measurement of glycated hemoglobin (%HbA1c, %A1C) levels in whole blood samples. The test is for home use and professional use for monitoring glycemic control in people with diabetes.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for the Metrika, Inc A1cNow® device, a glycated hemoglobin assay. It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. However, it does not contain the detailed study information required to answer your questions about acceptance criteria, device performance, and study design.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The A1cNow™ test provides quantitative measurement of the percent of glycated hemoglobin (% HbA1c) levels in fingerstick (capillary) whole blood samples. The test is for home use by people with diabetes to monitor glycemic control.

AlcNow™ for Home Use is a four-channel reflectance photometer that incorporates microelectronics, optics, and dry-reagent chemistry strips within a self-contained, integrated, single-use device. An unmeasured whole blood mixture (diluted) is applied directly to the sample port, and results are displayed in numeric form on the device's liquid crystal display after eight minutes. Having no switches or buttons, the device self-activates upon addition of the sample.

A1cNow™ for Home Use utilizes both immunoassay and chemistry technology to measure HbA1c and total hemoglobin, respectively. Upon the addition of a diluted blood sample, blue microparticles conjugated to anti-HbA1c antibody migrate along the reagent strips. The amount of blue microparticles captured on the strips reflects the amount of HbA1c in the sample.

For the total hemoglobin portion of the assay, the dilution of sample converts Hb to met-Hb, which is red-brown in color. The intensity of the red-brown color measured on the reagent strips is proportional to the concentration of hemoglobin in the sample.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Metrika A1cNow™ for Home Use

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided 510(k) summary:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The acceptance criteria for the A1cNow™ for Home Use are largely based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate device, A1cNow™ for Rx Home Use (K020234). Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" column reflects the performance characteristics reported for the predicate device, which the new device aims to meet or exceed.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Approximately 300 subjects.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the clinical studies involved "untrained subjects," suggesting real-world use or simulation. The document does not specify the country of origin, but it is a US 510(k) submission. It is a prospective study, as it involved untrained subjects using the device.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The ground truth was established by a "standard laboratory method."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not specify an adjudication method for the clinical study results. The comparison was made between the user's results and a "standard laboratory method."

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 reported. The study focused on the performance of the device when used by individual untrained subjects compared to a laboratory reference method, not on human readers interpreting results 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 conducted for the device. The nonclinical data (linearity, hematocrit tolerance, precision, specificity) directly address the device's inherent analytical performance independently of human interpretation of results. The device itself is designed for direct numeric output rather than human interpretation of an image or signal.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth used was established by a standard laboratory method for measuring %HbA1c.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly state a separate training set sample size. This device is a measurement device with dry-reagent chemistry strips and a reflectance photometer, rather than a machine learning or AI-driven algorithm that typically requires a large training dataset. The "training" in this context would likely refer to the initial development and calibration data, which is not detailed as a distinct "training set" in the provided summary. Each unit is factory calibrated.

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

• The document does not explicitly describe how ground truth for a training set (if one existed in the typical machine learning sense) was established. Given it's a physical device with factory calibration, the "ground truth" for calibration would typically involve a series of known, precisely measured reference samples or calibrators, but the specifics are not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AlcNow™ test provides quantitative measurement of the percent of glycated hemoglobin (% HbA1c) levels in capillary (fingerstick) or venous whole blood samples. The test is for professional use to monitor glycemic control in people with diabetes.

Not Found

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the A1cNow™ device, focusing on the requested information about acceptance criteria and the supporting study:

The provided text only contains the FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the A1cNow™ device, along with its statement of intended use. It does not contain the detailed study information, acceptance criteria, or performance data that would typically be found in the 510(k) summary or the actual study report. The FDA letter merely states that the device was deemed substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

Therefore, for most of your requested points, the information is not available in the provided document.

Here's what can be extracted and what information is missing:

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

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

• Not available in the document.

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)

• Not available in the document. For a glycated hemoglobin assay, "ground truth" would typically be established by a reference method (e.g., HPLC) rather than human experts interpreting images, but the specifics are not mentioned.

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

• Not available in the document. This concept is more applicable to studies involving human interpretation (like imaging studies) rather than a quantitative 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

• Not applicable and not available in the document. The A1cNow™ is a quantitative assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device that involves human readers in the traditional MRMC sense.

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

• Not applicable and not available in the document. The A1cNow™ is a diagnostic assay, where "standalone performance" generally refers to the device's accuracy and precision using laboratory methods, which would have been part of the substantial equivalence submission but are not detailed here.

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

• Not available in the document. For a blood test like HbA1c, the "ground truth" would likely be a highly accurate reference method (e.g., HPLC) for measuring glycated hemoglobin.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not available in the document. This device is a quantitative assay, typically calibrated according to established laboratory procedures using calibrators and controls, rather than "trained" in the machine learning sense with a "training set."

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

• Not applicable/Not available in the document. As above, the concept of a training set and its ground truth in the machine learning context does not directly apply to this type of device. Calibration would be performed using materials with known values derived from reference methods.

In summary, the provided FDA clearance letter and statement of intended use confirm the FDA's decision to clear the A1cNow™ device for marketing based on substantial equivalence. However, it does not provide the detailed study results, specific acceptance criteria, or the methodology of the studies that supported this clearance. To find that information, one would typically need to consult the 510(k) summary document filed with the FDA, which is usually publicly available through the FDA device database.

Ask a specific question about this device

The AlcNow™ test provides quantitative measurement of the percent of glycated hemoglobin in fresh capillary or venous whole blood samples. The test is for prescription home use by people with diabetes to monitor glycemic control.

Not Found

This is a 510(k) premarket notification for the A1cNow™ device, a glycosylated hemoglobin assay for prescription home use. There is no information in the provided text that describes the acceptance criteria, or a study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria. The document is primarily a letter from the FDA confirming the device's substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information in the format requested.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Osteomark NTx Point of Care (POC) is a urinary assay for the quantitative measure of the excretion of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) normalized to urinary creatinine (nM Bone Collagen Equivalents/mM creatinine). The test is used to monitor bone resorption changes following initiation of antiresorptive therapy (e.g., hormone replacement therapy).

Osteomark NTx Point of Care (POC) is a urinary assay for the quantitative measure of the excretion of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) normalized to urinary creatinine (nM Bone Collagen Equivalents/mM creatinine).

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "OSTEOMARK® NTx Point of Care (POC)". It is not a study report, and therefore, it does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer the questions about acceptance criteria and study design.

Specifically, the document does not provide:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, or details on training sets.
• Information on ground truth establishment (number of experts, qualifications, adjudication method, type of ground truth).
• Details on multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or standalone performance.

The letter simply states that the FDA has reviewed the 510(k) notification and determined the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, allowing it to be marketed. It refers to the "Indications For Use" which describes what the device does (measures N-telopeptides of type I collagen to monitor bone resorption changes following antiresorptive therapy).

To answer these questions, you would need to refer to the actual 510(k) submission document (K992997) or other study reports related to the OSTEOMARK® NTx Point of Care (POC) device, which are not included in this provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

DRx® Qt. hCG is a rapid, single-use, point-of-care device for the quantitative measurement of human chorionic gonadotropin (total ßhCG) in capillary and venous whole blood samples. The device is for professional use as an aid in the assessment of pregnancy status.

The DRx® Ot. hCG device is a single-use, disposable four-channel reflectance photometer integrated with dry reagent chemistry strips and contained within a sealed plastic case. Each unit consists of:
. an optics subassembly that also supports the reagent strips

• a printed circuit board that includes a microprocessor, analog . electronics, battery clips, batteries, silicon diode photodetectors, and j light emitting diodes (LEDs)
• a plastic molded part ("spider") that supports the liquid crystal display ● (LCD), the sample pad and the auto start leads, and also provides optical shielding
• two reagent strips .
• whole blood separation chemistry pad ●
• a desiccant
• liquid crystal display (LCD)
  Both test strips are lateral flow immunoassays for measuring hCG between zero and 10,000 mIU/mL. In both strips, a blue color is measured in discrete test zones. The test zones are the areas where the specific reactions occur and concentrations are measured.
  The whole blood separation mechanism occurs when the whole blood ~ sample reaches the sample pad and immobilizes the red blood cells. As a result, the plasma freely migrates by capillary action onto the assay strips to complete the final reactions. The hCG reaction proceeds as follows: anti-hCG antibody, conjugated to blue microparticles, migrate across the strip upon the addition of whole blood sample. The amount of blue microparticles captured on the test zones is proportional to the amount of hCG in the sample.
  The LEDs and silicon photodetectors compare the reflectances of the color intensities before and after the sample addition. Based on the calibration parameters stored in memory, the numerical concentrations of hCG is calculated. The final assay results are expressed in mIU/mL hCG.

The Metrika, Inc. DRx® Qt. hCG device is a rapid, single-use, point-of-care device for the quantitative measurement of human chorionic gonadotropin (total ßhCG) in capillary and venous whole blood samples, intended for professional use to assess pregnancy status.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" through numerical targets for the comparative study. Instead, it presents the results of a comparative study against a predicate device and demonstrates strong correlation, implying that the performance achieved is considered acceptable for substantial equivalence. For analytical performance, criteria are implied by the confirmed ranges and specificities.

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

• Accuracy (Venous Blood vs. Predicate): 96 venous whole blood samples.
• Accuracy (Fingerstick Blood vs. Predicate): 63 matched whole blood capillary (fingerstick) samples.
• Accuracy (DRx® Venous vs. DRx® Fingerstick): 63 matched venous and fingerstick samples (implicitly the same 63 used for the fingerstick vs. predicate comparison, as they were "matched").
• Precision: Not explicitly stated as a single number per level, but tested with a "3-level whole blood precision panel" (low, middle, and high hCG levels) by repeat testing on a single day.
• Data Provenance:
  • For accuracy studies, samples were collected at "four 'POL' clinical sites and in-house" for venous samples, and at "clinical sites" for fingerstick samples. This indicates the data is prospective and collected from multiple real-world clinical settings.
  • The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but given the submission is to the FDA in the US, it is reasonable to assume the clinical sites were located within the US.

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

The ground truth for the accuracy studies was established by comparison to a predicate device, the Stratus® ßhCG, not by expert consensus. Therefore, the concept of "number of experts" or their qualifications for establishing ground truth does not directly apply here. The predicate device's results serve as the reference.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable, as the ground truth was established by a single, commercially available predicate device (Stratus® ßhCG) which served as the reference method. There was no expert adjudication process described for reconciling discrepancies.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study focused on the device's analytical performance (accuracy, precision, sensitivity, linearity, specificity) compared to a predicate device, and the equivalence of different sample types (venous vs. fingerstick), not on the improvement of human readers with AI assistance. The DRx® Qt. hCG is a standalone diagnostic device, not an AI-assisted interpretation tool for human readers.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The DRx® Qt. hCG is described as "a rapid, single-use, point-of-care device for the quantitative measurement," indicating it provides a direct numerical result without human interpretation of images or complex data that would involve a "human-in-the-loop." The study evaluates the device's output (hCG concentration) directly against a predicate method.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth for the accuracy assessment was established using comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (Stratus® ßhCG). This is a common method for demonstrating substantial equivalence in medical device submissions where an established gold standard instrument exists.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not specify a separate "training set" size. This type of submission (510(k) summary for a diagnostic device) typically focuses on the validation of the finalized device. The device's internal calibration parameters are mentioned ("Based on the calibration parameters stored in memory"), implying that some data was used for initial development and calibration, but the size and nature of this "training set" are not detailed in this summary.

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

As the document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI, the concept of establishing ground truth for it as typically understood is not applicable. The device relies on "calibration parameters stored in memory" which would have been established through a manufacturing and calibration process, likely using known concentration standards, rather than expert-labeled data for training an algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Osteomark NTx Point of Care (POC) is a urinary assay for the quantitative measure of the excretion of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) normalized to urinary creatinine (nM Bone Collagen Equivalents/mM creatinine). The test is used to monitor bone resorption changes following initiation of antiresorptive therapy (e.g., hormone replacement therapy).

The Osteomark® NTx POC device is a single-use, disposable four-channel reflectance photometer integrated with dry reagent chemistry strips and contained within a sealed plastic case. Each unit consists of:

• an optics subassembly that also supports the reagent strips .
• electronics, batteries, photodetectors, and light emitting diodes (LEDs). ●
• . plastic parts
• two reagent strips ●
• a desiccant ●
• a liquid crystal display (LCD) ●
  The reagent strips capillary transport with various chemical reactions. The first strip is an immunoassay for measuring the NTx, and the second strip is a general chemistry assay for measuring the creatinine. In both strips, a blue color is measured in discrete test zones. The test zones are the areas where the specific reaction occurs and concentrations are measured.
  The NTx reaction proceeds as follows: anti-NTx antibody, conjugated to blue microparticles, migrate across the strip upon the addition of urine sample. The amount of blue microparticles captured on the test zones is proportional to the amount of NTx in the sample.
  The creatinine reaction proceeds as follows: the addition of the urine sample solubilizes enzymes immobilized in the strip test zones. A cascade of enzymatic reactions mediates the production of hydrogen peroxide from the oxidation of creatinine. In the presence of horseradish peroxidase and a color indicator, a blue color is generated from the hydrogen peroxide with an intensity proportional to the concentration of creatinine in the sample.
  The LEDs and silicon photodetectors compare the reflectances of the color intensities before and after the sample addition. Based on the calibration parameters stored in memory, the numerical concentrations of NTx and creatinine are calculated. Assay results are expressed in nM Bone Collagen Equivalents (BCE) divided by mM creatinine (nM BCE/mM creatinine).

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Metrika DRx® NTx (Osteomark® NTx Point of Care) device, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Note regarding Acceptance Criteria: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for many metrics. The "Implied Acceptance Criteria" column infers what might be considered acceptable based on typical clinical assay performance or the statement that studies "demonstrated substantial equivalence." The FDA's successful clearance implies that the reported performance was deemed acceptable.

Study Details

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

   • Accuracy Study: 235 urine samples.
     • Provenance: This dataset was used for comparative testing between Osteomark® NTx POC and the two predicate methods. The samples were assayed by Osteomark® NTx POC across three "POLtype" clinical sites (Physician Office Laboratories) and by the predicate methods at a reference laboratory. It is implied these were prospective samples collected for the purpose of the study, given they were tested at clinical sites. The country of origin is not specified but is implicitly the USA given the FDA submission.
   • Clinical Performance (HRT Monitoring): 200 samples from 50 HRT-treated women.
     • Provenance: Retained samples from a published study. This indicates a retrospective analysis of previously collected samples. Country of origin not specified.

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

   • Accuracy Study: The ground truth for the accuracy study was established by predicate methods (Osteomark® NTx EIA and Creatinine Plus) performed at a reference laboratory. These are established analytical methods, not subjective expert assessment. Therefore, no human "experts" in the traditional sense (e.g., radiologists) were used to establish ground truth for this aspect. The expertise lies in the validated predicate assays themselves.
   • Clinical Performance (HRT Monitoring): The ground truth for comparing NTx changes and correlation with BMD comes from the reference method (Osteomark NTx EIA) and Bone Mineral Density (BMD) measurements. Again, these are objective measurements, not subjective expert interpretation.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable. The ground truth was established by laboratory measurements using predicate devices and BMD measurements, not through expert consensus requiring adjudication.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay that provides quantitative measurements, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device requiring human reader interpretation. Therefore, the concept of human readers improving with/without AI assistance does not apply.

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

   • Yes, the device itself provides a standalone result (NTx/creatinine ratio). The accuracy and precision studies evaluate the performance of this device in isolation, comparing its output to predicate methods. While a professional user operates the device, the device's measurement and calculation of the final result (NTx/creatinine) are entirely automated ("algorithm only"). The intended use states "professional use," indicating human operation, but the core analytical performance is standalone.

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

   • Analytical Ground Truth: For accuracy and linearity, the ground truth was established by measurements obtained from legally marketed predicate devices (Osteomark® NTx EIA and Creatinine Plus) in a reference laboratory setting.
   • Clinical Ground Truth: For the HRT monitoring study, the ground truth included measurements from the predicate Osteomark NTx EIA and Bone Mineral Density (BMD) measurements, which are established clinical outcome measures for bone health.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This device is a quantitative assay based on dry reagent chemistry and reflectance photometry, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a distinct training phase. Therefore, the concept of a training set for an AI model is not applicable here. The assay's internal calibration parameters are "stored in memory," suggesting a pre-determined calibration process rather than an adaptive training set.

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

   • As there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not applicable. The device relies on established scientific principles of immunoassay and enzymatic reactions with internal calibration.

Ask a specific question about this device