Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

MRL Diagnostics' HSV-1 ELISA IgG test is intended for qualitatively detecting the presence or absence of human IgG class antibodies to HSV-1 in human sera. In conjunction with the MRL HSV-2 ELISA IgG, the test is indicated for 1) testing sexually active adults, with or without a clinical history of herpes, for aiding in the presumptive diagnosis of HSV infection to identify persons who are at risk for transmitting or acquiring HSV so they may be counseled, and 2) testing expectant mothers for aiding in the presumptive assessment of the risk for acquiring and/or transmitting HSV to their child, so they may be counseled.

In the MRL Diagnostics HSV-1 ELISA IgG assay, the polystyrene microwells are coated with recombinant gG-1 antigen. Diluted serum samples and controls are incubated in the wells to allow specific antibody present in the samples to react with the antigen. Nonspecific reactants are removed by washing, and peroxidase-conjugated anti-human IgG is added and reacts with specific IgG. Excess conjugate is removed by washing. Enzyme substrate and chromogen are added, and the color is allowed to develop. After adding the Stop Reagent, the resultant color change is quantified by a spectrophotometric reading of optical density (OD) which is directly proportional to the amount of antigenspecific IgG present in the sample. Sample optical density readings are compared with reference cut-off OD readings to determine results.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the MRL Diagnostics HSV-1 ELISA IgG device, based on the provided text:

Please note that the document is a 510(k) summary, which provides a high-level overview. Specific acceptance criteria values are not explicitly stated as distinct acceptance criteria but are implied by the reported performance and comparison to predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since explicit "acceptance criteria" values are not listed as predefined thresholds for each attribute, I will present the reported performance in the context of sensitivity and specificity, as these are key metrics for diagnostic devices and are compared against similar predicate devices. The document implies that the reported performance values are within acceptable ranges for the intended use and demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

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

• Sexually Active Adults: n = 246 (excluding 3 atypical Western blots and 2 ELISA equivocal samples), retrospective, from the Northwestern United States.
• Expectant Mothers: n = 241 (excluding 1 atypical Western blot and 1 ELISA equivocal sample), retrospective, from the Northwestern United States.
• Culture Positives: n = 38 (for sensitivity comparison with MRL EL vs. Culture) and n = 37 (for sensitivity comparison with MRL EL vs. WB). Provenance not explicitly stated beyond "culture positive patients," but the "serological 'truth'" was defined using a Western Blot from a major university in the Northwestern United States.
• Low Prevalence Population (College Students): n = not explicitly stated for the total, but 56 negative and 24 positive WB-1 samples in the analysis, retrospective, from a major university in the Northwestern United States.
• Type Specificity with HSV-2 Western Blot Positives: n = 90 (combined from expectant mothers, sexually active adults, low prevalence persons, and HSV-1 culture positives), retrospective, from the Northwestern United States.
• Cross-reactivity: n = 26 (sera from HSV sero-negative by another manufacturer's FDA cleared HSV ELISAs, and IFA IgG positive for taxonomically similar viruses), retrospective.
• CDC's HSV/CMV Serum Panel: n = 99, characterized serum panel.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth. It states that "Serological 'truth' was defined using a type specific Western blot from a major university located in the Northwestern United States." This implies that the Western Blot results, performed and interpreted at a reputable academic institution, served as the gold standard for defining HSV-1 serostatus. The expertise lies in the established and accepted methodology of the Western blot assay itself and its standard interpretation at that university.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method involving multiple readers. The "truth" was defined by the Western blot results, which is a laboratory test, not an interpretation by multiple human readers in an adjudication process. Discrepant results between the MRL ELISA and the Western blot were reported but not necessarily adjudicated by additional experts in the traditional sense of resolving differing opinions.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance was not done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, which directly measures specific analytes (antibodies in this case), and its performance is assessed against a laboratory gold standard (Western blot), not through human reader interpretation.

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

Yes, the studies presented are standalone performance evaluations of the MRL HSV-1 ELISA IgG device. The device's results (optical density readings interpreted as positive or negative) are compared directly against the serological "truth" established by the Western blot, without human intervention or interpretation of the device's output to reach a diagnosis.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary type of ground truth used for serological status was type-specific Western blot (WB) results from a major university in the Northwestern United States. For certain sensitivity studies, culture positivity was also used in conjunction with Western blot.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document is a 510(k) summary for an ELISA diagnostic kit, which is a laboratory assay. There is no concept of a "training set" in the context of an immunoassay like there would be for an AI/machine learning device. The device itself is designed based on known biological principles and recombinant antigens, not "trained" on data. The studies presented are performance validations of the final device.

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

As there is no "training set" in the machine learning sense for this in vitro diagnostic device, this question is not applicable. The device's design and functionality are based on established scientific principles of immunology and antigen-antibody reactions.

Ask a specific question about this device

MRL Diagnostics' HSV-2 ELISA IgG test is intended for qualitatively detecting the presence or absence of human IgG class antibodies to HSV-2 in human sera. In conjunction with the MRL HSV-1 ELISA IgG, the test is indicated for testing sexually active adults or expectant mothers for aiding in the presumptive diagnosis of HSV infection. The predictive value of a positive or negative result depends on the population's prevalence and the pretest likelihood of HSV-2 infection. The performance of this assay has not been established for use in a pediatric population, for neonatal screening, for testing of immunocompromised patients, or for use with automated equipment.

In the MRL Diagnostics HSV-2 ELISA IgG assay, the polystyrene microwells are coated with recombinant gG-2 antigen. Diluted serum samples and controls are incubated in the wells to allow specific antibody present in the samples to react with the antigen. Nonspecific reactants are removed by washing, and peroxidase-conjugated anti-human IgG is added and reacts with specific IgG. Excess conjugate is removed by washing. Enzyme substrate and chromogen are added, and the color is allowed to develop. After adding the Stop Reagent, the resultant color change is quantified by a spectrophotometric reading of optical density (OD). Sample optical density readings are compared with reference cut-off OD readings to determine results.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text for the MRL Diagnostics HSV-2 ELISA IgG device (K993724):

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for a medical device, which typically focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than setting explicit "acceptance criteria" for performance in the same way a clinical trial might. However, we can infer performance targets based on the data presented and comparisons to the reference methods.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred) and Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device

MRL Diagnostics' Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgG test is intended for the qualitative detection of IgG class antibodies, in human serum, to the genogroup 1 (Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto) of B. burgdorferi sensu lato. The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Western Blot IgG test is intended to provide supportive evidence of infection with B. burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease as an aid in the diagnosis of Lyme disease, using serum samples which have been found positive or equivocal by a B. burgdorferi screening method (e.g., IFA or ELISA). The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Western Blot IgG can be used at any time following onset of symptoms provided the IFA or ELISA is positive or equivocal. Also, it should be used for follow up when: 1) only IgM antibodies were originally detected, 2) IgG antibodies were detected, but were not considered significant by Western blot, or 3) previously seronegative patients subsequently test positive by IFA or ELISA.

MRL Diagnostics separates B. burgdorferi proteins by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and electrophoretically transfers the fractionated proteins from the gel to a nitrocellulose membrane. The nitrocellulose membrane is dried and cut into strips. The antigen strips are numbered and packaged. The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgG test is a two stage procedure. In the first stage, the patient sera is diluted and incubated with individual antigen strips. If antibodies to B. burgdorferi are present in the sera, they will bind to the Borrelia antigens immobilized on the nitrocellulose membranes. In the second stage, visualization of the bound antibodies is accomplished by incubating the blots with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-human IgG, (Fc fragment specific) followed by the addition of substrate (BCIP/NBT) which forms a colored precipitate at each site (antigen band) where the anti-human conjugate has bound. The resulting pattern of band reactivity is then interpreted.

Response to Request for Information on Device Acceptance Criteria and Study Details:

This document is a 510(k) Safety and Effectiveness Summary for the MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgG device. It describes the device, its intended use, and performance data.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" with numerical targets for sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. Instead, it presents the results of studies demonstrating the device's performance across various populations and conditions. The implied acceptance, given the 510(k) clearance, is that the demonstrated performance is considered substantially equivalent to a predicate device and adequate for its intended use as an aid in diagnosing Lyme disease.

Here's a table summarizing the reported device performance:

Note: The sensitivity values are provided for different timeframes post-infection as well, indicating varying performance throughout the course of the disease. The document highlights that "weakly reactive (borderline) specimens decrease the kit's reproducibility."

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

Sensitivity Study (Lyme Disease Population):

• Total Sample Size: 184 well-characterized Lyme disease positive patient sera from 158 patients.
• Data Provenance: Retrospective.
  • Investigational Sites 1 and 2 used samples from their "own well-characterized serum banks."
  • Investigational Site 3 used a "retrospective well characterized serum panel supplied by the CDC."
• Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated but implied to be United States given the CDC involvement.

Specificity Study (Normal and Cross-reactive Populations):

• Total Sample Size: 606 sera.
  • Normal Population: 326 serum samples (from endemic and non-endemic areas).
  • Cross-reactive Disease Samples: 286 disease state serum samples.
• Data Provenance: Retrospective.
  • Normal samples from persons with "no known history of Lyme disease."
  • Cross-reactive samples from patients with "potentially cross-reactive diseases."
• Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated but implied to be United States given the context of general public health data and CDC involvement.

Reproducibility Studies:

• Intra-laboratory and Inter-lot Reproducibility: 10 serum samples (of varying reactivity).
• Inter-reader and Inter-site Reproducibility: 18 patient sera.
• Data Provenance: Retrospective, as these were established serum samples used for testing.
• Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number of individual experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") used to establish the ground truth for the test sets.

However, it describes the ground truth for the Lyme Disease population as:

• Patients with EM (Erythema migrans), a late stage symptom per the CDC case definition.
• B. burgdorferi seropositive.
• B. burgdorferi culture positive.

For the CDC panel, it describes "well-characterized" and "masked, characterized serum panel." This implies that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), a leading public health institution in the US, established the characterization, which would involve expert consensus and established diagnostic criteria for Lyme disease.

For normal and cross-reactive populations, the ground truth was based on "persons with no known history of Lyme disease" and "patients with potentially cross-reactive conditions or infections," respectively. This suggests clinical diagnosis by healthcare professionals rather than a specially convened expert panel for the study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing the ground truth of the test set. The ground truth appears to have been established prior to the study using existing clinical and laboratory diagnostics, often leveraging CDC definitions and characterized serum banks.

For reproducibility studies, two readers at each site performed the inter-reader and inter-site assessments, but no formal adjudication of discrepancies is described, only the percentage of identical interpretations and band readings.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

A formal MRMC comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not conducted. The device described is a diagnostic test (Western Blot IgG), not an AI-powered image analysis tool that assists human readers.

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

Yes, the studies conducted are standalone evaluations of the diagnostic device. The device itself is a laboratory assay (Western Blot) that produces a pattern of bands. Interpretation of these bands is inherent to the use of the device, but the performance metrics provided (sensitivity, specificity) reflect the output of the device and its interpretation rules, rather than the performance of an AI algorithm assisting a human. The reproducibility studies evaluate the consistency of interpretation by human readers, but this is part of the device's operational performance, not an AI assisting human performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth used for the test sets was a combination of:

• Clinical Definition/Case Definition: For Lyme Disease patients, the CDC case definition (presence of EM, late-stage symptoms) was used.
• Laboratory Confirmation: B. burgdorferi seropositivity or culture positivity was used for Lyme disease patients.
• Historical Data/Clinical Diagnosis: For normal individuals, a lack of known history or symptoms of Lyme disease. For cross-reactive conditions, the clinical diagnosis of those specific conditions.
• Well-Characterized Serum Panels: The CDC supplied a "masked, characterized serum panel" for one of the investigational sites. This typically implies a rigorous, expert-driven characterization process.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not mention a "training set" in the context of an algorithm or AI. This is a traditional diagnostic assay (Western Blot), not a machine learning model that requires a distinct training phase. The populations described (Lyme disease, Normal, Cross-reactive) are test sets used to evaluate the assay's performance.

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

As there is no "training set" for an algorithm in this context, this question is not applicable. The device relies on biochemical reactions and a predefined interpretive criteria for bands rather than a trained algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

MRL Diagnostics' Lyme Disease Borrelia burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM test allows the qualitative detection of IgM class antibody in human serum to individual proteins of the genogroup 1 (B. burgdorferi sensu stricto) of B. burgdorferi sensu lato. The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Western Blot assay is intended to provide supportive evidence of infection with B. burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, using serum samples which have been found positive or equivocal by another B. burgdorferi detection methodology (e.g. IFA or ELISA).

The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM can be used alone during the acute phase (0-4 weeks of symptoms onset) of B. burgdorferi infection. After the acute phase, infected patients are usually found to be Western Blot positive for IgG. For persons beyond the acute phase, a positive IgM test alone is not recommended for determining active disease in patients. Therefore, both IgG and IgM Western Blots should be used after the acute phase.

MRL Diagnostics separates B. burgdorferi proteins by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and electrophoretically transfers the fractionated proteins from the gel to a nitrocellulose membrane. The nitrocellulose membrane is dried and cut into strips. The antigen strips are numbered and packaged.

The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM test is a two stage procedure. In the first stage, the patient sera is diluted and incubated with individual antigen strips. If antibodies to B. burgdorferi are present in the sera, they will bind to the Borrelia antigens immobilized on the nitrocellulose membranes. In the second stage, visualization of the bound antibodies is accomplished by incubating the blots with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-human IgM, (Fc fragment specific) followed by the addition of substrate (BCIP/NBT) which forms a colored precipitate at each site (antigen band) where the anti-human conjugate has bound. The resulting pattern of band reactivity is then interpreted.

The provided text describes the MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM device and the studies conducted to establish its safety and effectiveness.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details:

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

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "The device must achieve a sensitivity of X%"). Instead, it presents the observed performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility) from the studies.

• 6 months: 32% (23/71) |
  | Specificity | Overall Normal Population Positivity (IgM): 2% (5/325)
  Cross-reactivity (IgM): Varied by condition, e.g., Syphilis 1% (1/74), Periodontal 10% (2/20), E. chaffeensis 63% (5/8). |
  | Reproducibility| Intra-laboratory: 100% interpretation, 90-100% criteria band readings.
  Inter-lot: 100% interpretation, 90-100% criteria band readings.
  Inter-reader: 96% interpretation, 94-96% criteria band readings.
  Inter-site: 95% interpretation, 94-98% criteria band readings. |

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

• Sensitivity Test Set:

  • Total: 176 well-characterized Lyme disease positive patient sera.
  • Provenance: Retrospective serum samples.
    • Investigational Sites 1 and 2 used samples from their own well-characterized serum banks.
    • Investigational Site 3 used a retrospective, masked, characterized serum panel supplied by the CDC.
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but the involvement of the CDC in the US suggests data largely from the US.

• Specificity Test Set:

  • Total: 606 sera.
    • 325 serum samples from persons with no known history of Lyme disease (Normals, from endemic and non-endemic areas).
    • 284 disease state serum samples from potentially cross-reactive diseases.
  • Provenance: Retrospective.
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but implies similar geographical sources as the sensitivity study.

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 mentions "well-characterized Lyme disease positive patient sera... from patients with EM, a late stage symptom per the CDC case definition and B. burgdorferi seropositive, or B. burgdorferi culture positive." For specificity, it uses "persons with no known history of Lyme disease" and "disease state serum samples from potentially cross-reactive diseases."

No direct mention is made of a specific number of experts or their qualifications establishing the ground truth for the test set in a consensus-based reading scenario. The ground truth appears to be based on:

• Clinical diagnosis (EM, late stage symptom per CDC case definition).
• Laboratory confirmation (B. burgdorferi seropositive or B. burgdorferi culture positive).
• Known patient history for normal and cross-reactive cohorts.

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

The document does not describe an adjudication method for establishing the ground truth of the test set samples. The ground truth seems to be established based on clinical and laboratory criteria as described above, rather than expert interpretation of the western blot results themselves for the purpose of ground truth.

For the inter-reader reproducibility study, it mentions "read by two readers at each site," but this is to assess reader variability, not to establish a adjudicated ground truth for individual cases.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a diagnostic test (Western Blot IgM) interpreted by human readers, but the study focuses on the standalone performance and reproducibility of the device, not on comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance. AI assistance is not mentioned.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The reported sensitivity and specificity values are for the device (MRL Diagnostics' Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM test) as interpreted by trained personnel (implied by "read by two readers at each site" in reproducibility studies, but the main sensitivity/specificity data appears to be for the device's output). The "algorithm" in this context is the Western Blot interpretation criteria used by the trained readers. There is no mention of an automated algorithm separate from human interpretation for standalone performance.

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

The ground truth for the test set was established using:

• Clinical diagnosis: Patients with Erythema Migrans (EM), a late-stage symptom per the CDC case definition.
• Laboratory confirmation: B. burgdorferi seropositive or B. burgdorferi culture positive.
• Known patient history: For normal populations (no known history or symptoms of Lyme Disease) and cross-reactivity populations (patients with potentially cross-reactive conditions or infections).

This is a combination of clinical diagnosis and laboratory results.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly describe a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithm development. The "well-characterized" samples described in the studies are for evaluating the performance of the device. Medical devices like this Western Blot typically have their "criteria bands" for positivity established through extensive biological research and clinical correlation, not through a machine learning training process with a distinct training set. The criteria bands (e.g., 23, 39, 41 kDa) are pre-defined biological markers.

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

As there is no distinct "training set" described for an algorithm, this question is not directly applicable. The "ground truth" for defining the diagnostic criteria of the Western Blot (i.e., which bands are indicative of infection) would have been established through prior fundamental research into B. burgdorferi immunology and clinical presentations of Lyme disease, correlating specific antibody band patterns with confirmed cases.

Ask a specific question about this device