Search Results

The Free Testosterone AccuBind® ELISA Test System is an Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) for the quantitative measurement of free testosterone in human serum. Measurement of free testosterone is used in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders involving the male sex hormones (androgens), including primary and secondary hypogonadism, impotence in males and in females; hirsutism (excessive hair) and virilization (masculinization) due to tumors, polycystic ovaries and androgenital syndromes.

The kit consists of seven (7) vials of serum reference calibrators for Free Testosterone with two (2) controls (one low and one high); one (1) vial of Testosterone (Analog)-horseradish peroxidase (HRP) conjugate in a protein stabilizing matrix; one 96-well testosterone antibody-coated microplate; one (1) vial of concentrated wash solution; two (2) vials for tetramethy(benzidine (TMB) substrate solution preparation; and one (1) vial of stop reaction solution.

The provided document describes the analytical performance of the Monobind Inc. Free Testosterone AccuBind® ELISA Test System, an in vitro diagnostic device, rather than an AI/ML-driven device. Therefore, many of the requested criteria often associated with AI/ML device studies (e.g., number of experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, human-in-the-loop performance, training set details) are not applicable to this type of medical device.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the device's acceptance criteria and the study that proves it meets them as presented in the document.

Here's the breakdown:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this type of in-vitro diagnostic device, "acceptance criteria" are typically defined by regulatory standards and good laboratory practices (e.g., CLSI guidelines). The document presents analytical performance data against these established industry benchmarks rather than explicit numerical acceptance criteria beyond what is internally defined for successful assay development and validation (e.g., precision specifications).

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

• Precision Study:
  • Sample Size: For the representative lot, 3 control samples were tested, with 80 measurements per sample (duplicate, two times per day for 20 days). 3 serum pools were also tested in the same manner (N=32 readings for the representative lot table, N=80 for combined lot table). For the combined lot precision, 3 controls and 3 patient samples (serum pools) were used, with a total of 80 measurements per sample.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but typical for in vitro diagnostic device validation, these would be controlled laboratory studies using clinical samples (serum pools and control materials). No mention of country of origin or retrospective/prospective clinical data for the performance evaluation (this differs from the reference range determination).
• Linearity Study: 11 concentrations of sample preparations.
• Recovery Study: 5 serum samples (containing different levels of endogenous testosterone).
• Reference Range Determination: 261 male and female serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified for the 261 samples, but typically these samples are collected under ethical guidelines from a relevant population.
• Cross-Reactivity Study: Specific compounds were tested with male serum spiked samples and blank serum spiked samples. No specific number of replicates per compound is given, but "aliquots from pool of human serum" are mentioned for testosterone cypionate and undecanoate.
• Method Comparison Study: 137 samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but these would be clinical samples with varying testosterone levels.
• Interferences Study: Charcoal-stripped human serum spiked with known concentrations of interferent.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth and Qualifications of Experts

• Not Applicable. For an in-vitro diagnostic assay for quantitative measurement of an analyte like Free Testosterone, the "ground truth" is established by the analytical method itself (the assay's ability to accurately measure the target analyte) and validated against reference methods or calibrated materials. There are no human "experts" establishing image-based ground truth as would be the case for AI/ML diagnostic tools. The predicate device serves as a comparative "ground truth" for method comparison.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. This is an in-vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI/ML system requiring human adjudication of results. The results are quantitative measurements.

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

• No. This is an in-vitro diagnostic assay, not an imaging AI/ML device that assists human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant or performed.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• Yes (inherently). The device itself is the "standalone" measurement system. Its performance (precision, linearity, recovery, sensitivity, specificity, interference) is evaluated on its own. There isn't a separate "human-in-the-loop" component as would be found in an AI-assisted diagnostic workflow.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this device's performance validation is established through:
* Known Concentrations: For precision (control materials with known values), linearity (prepared concentrations), recovery (spiked samples with known additions), detection limits (analyzing blanks and low-concentration samples).
* Reference Methods/Predicate Device: For method comparison, the predicate device (EiAsy Free Testosterone EIA) serves as the comparator.
* Established Analytical Principles: The fundamental biochemical reactions and measurement principles of the ELISA platform.
* CLSI Guidelines: Adherence to established Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines (e.g., EP06-A, C28-A3, EP17-A, EP07-A2) for validation studies provides the framework for defining acceptable performance.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. This is an in-vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI/ML device that requires a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning model development. The development and optimization of the assay's reagents and protocol are analogous to "training" in a general sense, but no specific numerical sample size is defined as a training set for an algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable. As above, there is no AI/ML "training set." The "ground truth" for developing such an assay comes from fundamental biochemical understanding, chemical synthesis of reagents, and iterative optimization of assay conditions to achieve desired analytical performance characteristics. This involves standard laboratory development practices common to IVD manufacturing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Monobind AccuBind Neo-TSH Microwell Elisa Assay is an in vitro diagnostic test system for the quantitative determination of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) in human whole blood dried on Whatman 903 filter paper. It is intended to be used to screen newborns for congenital hypothyroidism.

The Monobind AccuBind™ Neonatal TSH Elisa Assay is a solid phase two-site immunoenzymometric assay based on the direct sandwich technique in which two specific antibodies are directed against two separate antigenic determinants on the hTSH molecule. In this method, TSH dried whole blood callbrator, patient specimen or control is first added to a streptavidin coated well. Elution buffer containing biotinylated monoclonal antibodies are added and the reactants mixed. Reaction between the biotinylated Anti-TSH and the TSH in the dried blood spot forms a complex that binds to the streptavidin coated to the inherent affinity of streptavidin and biotin. After the completion of the first incubation period, excess reactants are washed off via a wash step and the enzyme conjugate (another specific anti-TSH antibody linked to an enzyme) is added to the Ag-Ab complex deposited on the plastic surface. The enzyme labeled Anti-TSH antibody binds to the TSH making a sandwich complex with two antibodies bound to the antigen during a second incubation. The microplate is washed to remove unreacted enzyme. Finally, the activity of the enzyme present on the surface of the well is quantitated by reaction with a suitable substrate to produce color.

The provided document describes the Monobind AccuBind Neo-TSH Microwell Elisa Kit, an in vitro diagnostic test system for screening newborns for congenital hypothyroidism by quantitatively determining thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) in dried whole blood.

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 thresholds for agreement or performance metrics. Instead, it relies on a comparative effectiveness study against a predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The implicit acceptance criterion is that the new device's performance should be comparable to the predicate device.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for the Test Set

• Sample Size: 158 newborn samples.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It is a retrospective comparison as the samples were measured with both the new device and the existing predicate device.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth. The comparison is made against a legally marketed predicate device, with its results serving as the reference for comparison.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• None specified. The study compares the measurements of two different assay methods directly. There is no indication of an adjudication process to reconcile discrepancies between the two device readings.

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

• No, an MRMC study was not done. This is an in vitro diagnostic test for measuring TSH levels. The study involves comparing the quantitative results of two different assay kits on a set of samples, not the interpretation of results by human readers. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improving with AI vs without AI assistance" is not applicable here.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• Yes, a standalone performance was done. The Monobind AccuBind Neo-TSH Microwell Elisa Kit is an in vitro diagnostic test, and its performance (quantitative measurement of TSH) is assessed as a standalone device by comparing its output with that of a predicate device. The results (hTSH concentrations) are directly generated by the assay kit.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth used is effectively the results obtained from the legally marketed predicate device (Neonatal TSH RIA Kit (I-125) 510(k)# K772192). The study's objective is to show substantial equivalence to this predicate device. This is a form of "reference standard" or "comparator device" ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not provide information regarding a "training set" or its sample size. This type of device (Elisa kit) typically undergoes analytical validation and clinical validation. While some internal development (which could involve "training" in a broad sense for assay optimization) would have occurred, the document focuses on the premarket notification and equivalence comparison, which uses a test set of 158 samples. It's unlikely that a distinct "training set" as understood in machine learning contexts would be explicitly reported for this type of IVD.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• As no training set is discussed or explicitly defined in the document, no information is provided on how its ground truth would have been established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The test is intended for the quantitative determination of Thyroxine (T4) in blood specimens dried on the filter paper for screening newborns for congenital (neonatal) hypothyroidism.

AccuBind™ Neo-Natal T4 Microplate EIA

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification approval letter for a medical device (AccuBind™ Neo-Natal T4 Microplate EIA) and its "Indications for Use" statement. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications. This type of regulatory document confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, but it does not typically include the detailed scientific study data or performance metrics you've requested.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based solely on the provided text. The requested information (points 1-9) would typically be found in a separate submission document or a scientific publication related to the device's validation.

Ask a specific question about this device

Free T4 test device is an in vitro diagnostic test system for the quantitative determination of circulating Free T4 (non-protein bound Thyroxine) in human serum. It is intended strictly for invitro diagnostic use as an aid to clinical diagnosis of thyroid diseases.

Not Found

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter dated April 5, 2002, for "Monobind, Free T4 (Thyroxine) Microwell EIA" does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer the questions about acceptance criteria and study particulars for a medical device.

Specifically, the document is a clearance letter indicating the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, allowing it to proceed to market. It does not include the actual performance data, study design, acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment methods that would typically be part of a submission.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given text.

To answer your questions, I would need access to the actual 510(k) submission document or a summary thereof, which would contain the performance study details presented by Monobind.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Measurement of the Total Amount of Binding Sites Available for the Thyroid Hormones in Human Serum or Plasma by a Microplate Enzyme Immunossay. Measurements obtained from this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid diseases.

The Monobind microplate EIA utilizes limited amount of anti-thyroxine antibody coated on the surface of plastic wells of a microtiter plate. Specimens, calibrators or controls are then added followed by the enzyme-T4 conjugate and thyroxine. The amount of enzyme only gets to the specimen increases. After the completion of the incubation period, the enzyme-T4 conjugate on the well is quantitated by reaction with suitable substrate. The activity of the enzyme is inversely proportional to the amount of unsaturated thyroid hormone binding sites in the specimen. The employment of several serum references of known unsaturated thyroid hormone binding capacity permits construction of a graph of absorbance and concentration. From comparison to the dose response curve, an unknown specimen's absorbance can be correlated with thyroid hormone binding capacity.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract information about the acceptance criteria and study for the Monobind T-Uptake Microplate EIA device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner (e.g., "sensitivity must be >X%, specificity >Y%"). Instead, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalency" to a predicate device. The primary performance metric reported to support this equivalency is related to method agreement.

• Sample Size: 120 specimens
• Specimen Types: Hypothyroid, pregnant, euthyroid, and hyperthyroid populations.
• Mean Values:
  • Reference method (radioassay): 29.0
  • This method (microplate EIA): 29.3
• Linear Regression Equation: y = 1.56 + 0.96x
• Correlation Coefficient: 0.972
  Conclusion: These results "indicate good method agreement," suggesting substantial equivalency. |

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 120 specimens.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The data is described as "clinical comparison" using specimens from different patient populations, suggesting it is retrospective or prospective clinical data collected for the purpose of this comparison. It is not stated as simulated data.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The ground truth for the test set is established by the predicate device (Monobind T3 Uptake radioassay), not by human experts adjudicating results.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the ground truth for the test set was established by the predicate device's measurements, not by human expert 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

This is not applicable. The device is an immunoassay (laboratory test), not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance would not be relevant.

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

Yes, the study presented is a standalone performance study for the Monobind T-Uptake Microplate EIA. The device itself performs the measurement, and its results are compared directly to those of the predicate device. There is no human-in-the-loop aspect described for the performance evaluation of the device output itself, though human involvement is required for specimen collection, assay performance, and result interpretation in a clinical setting.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for performance evaluation (specifically, establishing substantial equivalence) was the measurements obtained from a legally marketed predicate device (Monobind T3 Uptake radioassay). This serves as the "reference method" against which the new device's performance is compared.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a separate "training set". For immunoassay development, reference materials, calibrators, and perhaps internal development studies would be used during the R&D phase to optimize the assay. However, the provided text describes the validation/clinical comparison study for regulatory submission, which is analogous to a test set in the context of demonstrating performance for regulatory approval.

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

As no specific "training set" is disclosed in the provided document, the method for establishing its ground truth is not available. However, typically for an immunoassay, the "ground truth" for developing and optimizing calibrators and controls (which might be considered analogous to training data in some contexts) would be based on established analytical methods, certified reference materials, or clinical samples with known characteristics, often determined by reference laboratories or established predicate methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The quantitative determination of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) concentration in human serum and plasma by a microplate enzymeimmunoassay.Measurements of follicle-stimulating hormone are used in the diagnosis of pituitary gland and gonadotropin disorders.

Monobind Inc., registration number 2020726, plans to introduce Into commercial distribution an enzymeimmunoassay (ELISA) kit for the determination of folliclestimulating hormone (FSH) in human serum and plasma.

The Monobind ELISA method is based on two-site immunoassay (sandwich) technology utilizing the streptavidin-blotin reaction to effect separation. Upon mixing monoclonal blotinylated anti-FSH antibody, the enzyme-labeled anti-FSH antibody and a serum containing the native antigen (FSH), reaction results between the native antigen (FSH) and the antibodies, without competition or steric hindrance, to form a soluble sandwich complex. Simultaneously, the complex is deposited to the well through the high affinity reaction of streptavidin and biotinylated antibody. After incubation is complete, decantation or aspiration separates the bound fraction. The enzyme activity on the well Is directly proportional to the native antigen (FSH) concentration. By utilizing several different serum references of known antigen values, a dose response curve can be generated from which the antigen concentration of an unknown can be ascertained.

The provided document describes the Monobind Inc. Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ELISA kit and its submission for 510(k) clearance. The focus of the acceptance criteria and study is on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Here's an analysis based on the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Linear Regression: The relationship between the new device and the predicate device should be linear, allowing for predictable conversion or direct comparison, expressed as y = mx + b.

Mean Values: The mean values of the new device should be comparable to the predicate device, indicating a similar central tendency in measurements. | Correlation Coefficient: 0.994, indicating very good method agreement.

Linear Regression Equation: y = 0.93(x) - 1.5, showing a strong linear relationship.

Mean Values: Predicate device (ICMA) mean = 21.0 mIU/ml; New device (ELISA) mean = 18.0 mIU/ml. |
| Analytical Recovery | Average Recovery Rate: When exogenous FSH is added to human serum specimens, the device should accurately recover the added amount, reflecting minimal interference or loss. | Average recovery of 99.9% when exogenous added FSH was introduced into human serum specimens. |
| Linearity (Dilution Studies) | Average Linearity: When specimens with varying FSH concentrations are diluted and compared to the dose response curve, the device should maintain accurate and proportional readings, demonstrating linearity across its measurement range. | Average linearity of 93.8% when specimens were diluted and compared to the dose response curve. |

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria is a clinical comparison study (sometimes referred to as a method comparison study) specifically designed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, the Ciba Corning ACS 180 chemiluminescence (ICMA) test.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: 128 specimens.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. However, the manufacturer is Monobind Inc., located in Costa Mesa, CA (USA), and the submission is to the FDA. It is highly probable the data is from the USA. The study used specimens "from low to elevated populations," indicating a range of clinical samples.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but clinical comparison studies for 510(k) submissions are typically prospective or involve retrospectively collected samples that are then prospectively tested with both devices. The phrase "clinical comparison... using 128 specimens" suggests these were real-world samples tested with both methods.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications:

Not applicable for this type of device and study. The ground truth itself is established by the predicate device's measurement, not by expert consensus on visual assessment or interpretation. For an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device like an ELISA kit, the "ground truth" for the comparison study is the result from the established, legally marketed predicate device.

4. Adjudication Method:

Not applicable. This is a quantitative measurement device comparison, not an interpretation task requiring adjudication. The "ground truth" is the numerical result from the predicate device.

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

Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device that provides a quantitative measurement of a biomarker in a sample, not an imaging or diagnostic interpretation device where human readers are involved. Therefore, there is no "human reader" component to improve in this context.

6. Standalone Performance:

Yes, a standalone performance study was done in the sense that the Monobind ELISA kit generated its own quantitative results independent of human interpretation. The study then compared these standalone results to those of the predicate device. The performance characteristics reported (mean values, recovery, linearity) are standalone performance metrics of the Monobind ELISA.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth for the comparison was the measurement obtained from the legally marketed predicate device, the Ciba Corning ACS 180 chemiluminescence (ICMA) test. This is an accepted method for demonstrating substantial equivalence for IVDs.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of an algorithm or machine learning. For an ELISA kit, "training" might refer to assay development and optimization rather than a separate dataset for an algorithm. The reported 128 specimens were used for the clinical comparison/validation study. There is no indication of a separate training set for a machine learning model.

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

As there is no explicit mention of a "training set" for an algorithm, this question is not directly applicable. If one considers the process of developing and optimizing the ELISA kit itself (which could be loosely termed "training" for a traditional assay), the "ground truth" would be established by various biochemical and analytical methods to ensure the assay accurately detected and quantified FSH in reference materials and spiked samples. This would precede the formal clinical comparison study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The quantitative determination of thyroglobulin autoantibodies in human serum or plasma by a microplate enzymeimmunoassay. Measurements of Tg autoantibodies may aid in the diagnosis of certain thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto, Graves, and nontoxic goiter.

The Monobind method is based on ELISA technology utilizing the streptavidin-blotin reaction to effect separation. Upon mixing blotinylated thyroglobulin antigen, and a serum containing the autoantibody (anti-Tg), reaction results between the biotinylated thyroglobulin antigen and the antibodies to form an immune complex. Simultaneously, the complex is deposited to the well through the high affinity reaction of streptavidin, coated on the well, and biotinylated thyroglobulin antigen. After incubation is complete, decantation or aspiration separates the unbound components. The enzyme linked species specific antibody (anti-h-igG) is then added to the microwells. The anti-h-lgG enzyme conjugate that binds to the immobilized immune complex in a second incubation are separated from unreacted material by a wash step. The enzyme activity in this fraction Is directly proportional to the antibody concentration in the specimen. By utilizing several different serum references of known antibody activity, a reference curve can be generated from which the antibody activity of an unknown can be ascertained.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the Monobind Anti-Thyroglobulin (Tg) Microplate ELISA, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details

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

   • Sample Size: 82 biological specimens.
   • Data Provenance: The specimens were from "normal and disease states populations," including "Hashimoto's thyroiditis, Graves Disease, thyroid nodules as well as thyroid carcinoma." The text does not specify the country of origin, but it implies human serum or plasma samples. The study appears to be retrospective as it used existing biological specimens for comparison.

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

   • The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their qualifications. The "ground truth" for the test set appears to be established by the "reference method" (the Biomerica anti-thyroglobulin ELISA test), which is itself a validated diagnostic method. The values for comparison were "known antibody activity," implying established measurements from the predicate device.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document does not describe an adjudication method involving experts. The comparison was quantitative, based on linear regression between the new device's measurements and the predicate device's measurements.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an ELISA kit, which is an in-vitro diagnostic test, not an AI-assisted imaging or diagnostic tool that would involve human readers in the classical sense.

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

   • Yes, this study represents a standalone performance evaluation of the ELISA kit. The "algorithm" here is the chemical reaction and measurement process of the ELISA kit itself, without direct human interpretation influencing the numerical result.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • The primary ground truth used for performance comparison was the quantitative results obtained from a predicate device (Biomerica anti-thyroglobulin ELISA test), which is itself a legally marketed diagnostic method. This is a form of clinical comparison against an established method. The results were also tied to "known antibody activity" and specimens from "disease states," implying a correlation with clinical diagnoses.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not specify a separate "training set" in the context of device development. For an ELISA kit, method development (e.g., optimizing reagent concentrations) would involve internal testing, but the 82 specimens discussed are for the validation/test set used to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

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

   • As there's no explicitly mentioned "training set" with ground truth establishment described for this type of device, this question is not directly applicable in the context of the provided information. Instead, the "ground truth" for calibrators (standards) used in the assay itself is established by preparing them from "diluted human serum" "standardized against the same international reference material 1st IRP 65/93." This ensures the traceability and accuracy of the calibration curve.

Ask a specific question about this device

The quantitative determination of thyroid peroxidase (TPO) autoantibodies in human serum or plasma by a microplate enzymeimmunoassay. Measurements of TPO autoantibodies may aid in the diagnosis of certain thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto, Graves, and nontoxic goiter.

The Monobind method is based on ELISA technology utilizing the streptavidin-blotin reaction to effect separation. Upon mixing blotinylated thyroid peroxidase antigen, and a serum containing the autoantibody (anti-TPO), reaction results between the biotinylated theroid peroxidase antigen and the antibodies to form an immune complex. Simultaneously, the complex is deposited to the well through the high affinity reaction of streptavidin, coated on the well, and biotinylated thyroid peroxidase antigen. After incubation is complete, decantation or aspiration separates the unbound components. The enzyme linked specific antibody (anti-h-lgG) is then added to the microwells. The anti-h-igG enzyme conjugate that binds to the Immobilized Immune complex In a second incubation are separated from unreacted material by a wash step. The enzyme activity In this fraction is directly proportional to the antibody concentration in the specimen. By utilizing several different serum references of known antibody activity, a reference curve can be generated from which the antibody activity of an unknown can be ascertained.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

• Equation to a straight-line: y = 1.02(x) - 5.1
• Correlation coefficient: 0.989
• Mean values for reference method: 127.0 IU/ml (new device) and 122.9 IU/ml (predicate device). This indicates good method agreement. |
  | Linearity / Recovery | Average 101.2% recovery when specimens were diluted and compared to the dose response curve. |

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 82 biological specimens.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or if the study was retrospective or prospective. It mentions the specimens were from "normal and disease states populations," including Hashimoto's thyroiditis, Graves Disease, thyroid nodules, and thyroid carcinoma.

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)

The document does not provide information on the number of experts or their qualifications. The ground truth for the comparison appears to be based on the results from the predicate device (Biomerica anti-thyroid peroxidase ELISA test) which is used as the "reference method."

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

Not applicable. The study compares the new device's quantitative measurements against a predicate device's quantitative measurements, not against expert interpretation requiring 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. This is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, not an imaging device or AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers.

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

Yes, this was a standalone performance study. The device (ELISA kit) directly produces a quantitative result; there is no human interpretation of an algorithm's output. The performance described is the device's measurement capability itself.

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

The ground truth for evaluating the new device's performance was the quantitative results obtained from the predicate device, the Biomerica anti-thyroid peroxidase ELISA test. The new device was compared to this "reference method."

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of device development or validation. This is an ELISA kit, which relies on chemical reactions rather than machine learning models that typically require training sets. The 82 specimens were used for the performance comparison.

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

As there's no mention of a traditional "training set" in the machine learning sense, this question is not applicable. The device's calibration involves "several different serum references of known antibody activity" to generate a reference curve, but this is part of the assay's operational setup rather than a training set for an algorithm. The "known antibody activity" in these calibrators would be established through a separate, highly controlled process, likely traceable to international standards (like WHO 66/387 mentioned for the calibrators).

Ask a specific question about this device

The Quantitative Determination of Prolactin Hormone Concentration in Human Serum by a Microplate Immunoenzymometric assay. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the anterior pituitary gland or the hypothalamus portion of the brain.

Monobind Inc., registration number 2020726, plans to introduce into commercial distribution an enzymelmmunoassay (IEMA) kit for the determination of prolactin (PRL) in human serum. The proprietary name is Prolactin (PRL) ELISA and the usual name is PRL IEMA. This device classification name is - prolactin test system - product code CFT (per 21 CRF section 862.1625). The Monobind ELISA method is based on two-site immunoassay (sandwich) technology utilizing the streptavidin-blotin reaction to effect separation. Upon mixing monoclonal blotinylated anti-PRL antibody, the enzyme-labeled anti-PRL antibody and a serum containing the native antigen (PRL), reaction results between the native antigen (PRL) and the antibodies, without competition or steric hindrance, to form a soluble sandwich complex. Simultaneously, the complex is deposited to the well through the high affinity reaction of streptavidin and biotinylated antibody. After incubation is complete, decantation or aspiration separates the bound fraction. The enzyme activity on the well is directly proportional to the native antigen (PRL) concentration. By utilizing several different serum references of known antigen values, a dose response curve can be generated from which the antigen concentration of an unknown can be ascertained.

The provided text describes the Monobind Inc. Prolactin (PRL) ELISA device and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It does not describe an AI medical device, but rather an immunoassay kit for measuring prolactin levels. Therefore, several of the requested categories for AI device studies are not applicable.

Here's the information extracted and organized as best as possible given the provided text:

Device Name: Prolactin (PRL) ELISA (Monobind Inc.)

Device Type: Enzyme immunoassay (IEMA) kit for the quantitative determination of prolactin (PRL) in human serum.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with specific threshold values. Instead, it describes performance characteristics and compares them to a predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: 86 specimens
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the specimens were sourced from "normal (including pregnancy) and disease states' populations." The country of origin is not mentioned. The study appears to be retrospective, using existing specimens for comparison against the predicate device.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

Not applicable. This is an immunoassay kit, not an image-based AI device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for the test set was the measured PRL concentration as determined by the predicate device (Ciba Corning ACS 180 chemiluminescence test).

4. Adjudication Method

Not applicable. There was no adjudication method described as it's an immunoassay comparison study, not an expert panel review.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI device, and no MRMC study was performed.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only)

Not applicable. This is an immunoassay kit, not an AI algorithm. The performance described is the standalone performance of the kit itself in comparison to a predicate device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the comparison study was the prolactin (PRL) concentration as determined by the predicate device, the Ciba Corning ACS 180 chemiluminescence (ICMA) test.

8. Sample Size for Training Set

The document does not mention a separate "training set." The 86 specimens were used for the clinical comparison study to demonstrate substantial equivalence against the predicate device. For an immunoassay, the "training" equivalent would be the development and calibration of the assay itself, which is not detailed in terms of sample size for that specific process.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established

Not applicable. As this is not an AI device, there isn't a "training set" in the sense of data used to train a model. The assay itself is based on established immunoassay principles and utilizes "several different serum references of known antigen values" to generate a dose-response curve for quantification. These "known antigen values" would have been established through prior reference methods, but the specifics are not detailed here.

Ask a specific question about this device

The quantitative determination of thyrotropin (TSH) concentration in human serum by a microplate enzymeimmunoassay.Measurements of thyroid stimulating hormone produced by the anterior pituitary are used in the diagnosis of thyroid or pituitary disorders.

Monobind Inc., registration number 2020726, plans to introduce into commercial distribution an enzymeimmunoassay (IEMA) kit for the determination of thyrotropin (TSH) In human serum. The proprietary name is Thyrotropin (TSH) ELISA and the usual name is TSH IEMA. This device classification name is - thyroid-stimulating hormone test system - product code JLW (per 21 CRF section 862.1690). The Monobind ELISA method is based on two-site immunoassay (sandwich) technology utilizing the streptavidin-biotin reaction to effect separation. Upon mixing monoclonal biotinylated anti-TSH antibody, the enzyme-labeled anti-TSH antibody and a serum containing the native antigen (TSH), reaction results between the native antigen (TSH) and the antibodies, without competition or steric hindrance, to form a soluble sandwich complex. Simultaneously, the complex is deposited to the well through the high affinity reaction of streptavidin and biotinylated antibody. After incubation is complete, decantation or aspiration separates the bound fraction. The enzyme activity on the well is directly proportional to the native antigen (TSH) concentration. By utilizing several different serum references of known antigen values, a dose response curve can be generated from which the antigen concentration of an unknown can be ascertained.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Monobind Thyrotropin (TSH) ELISA, 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: 170 specimens.
   • Data Provenance: The specimens were obtained from "hypothyroid, euthyroid and hyperthyroid populations," implying human clinical samples. The text does not explicitly state the country of origin or if the study was retrospective or prospective.

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

   • The document describes a "clinical comparison (linear regression)" against a predicate device (Ciba Corning ACS 180 chemiluminescence (ICMA) test), which is itself an established method for TSH determination. Therefore, the "ground truth" for the test set was essentially the results obtained from the predicate device, not established by human experts in this context.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable. The comparison was statistical (linear regression) against a predicate device, not an expert-based adjudication.

4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

   • No, an MRMC study was not described. This study focused on the performance of the new device compared to an existing device, not on human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

5. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study:

   • Yes, this was a standalone study of the device (Thyrotropin (TSH) ELISA) itself. Its performance was directly compared to the predicate device.

6. Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • Predicate Device Results: The results obtained from the Ciba Corning ACS 180 chemiluminescence (ICMA) test served as the reference or "ground truth" for comparison.

7. Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • The document implies that the "training" in this context refers to the development and calibration of the ELISA kit itself, including the generation of a dose-response curve using "several different serum references of known antigen values." It does not specify a distinct "training set" sample size in the same way a machine learning algorithm might.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

   • The ground truth for generating the dose-response curve (calibration) for the Monobind ELISA was established by using "several different serum references of known antigen values." These known values would typically be traceable to international standards for TSH.

Ask a specific question about this device