Search Results

The NeuMoDx CT/NG Assay 2.0, as implemented on the NeuMoDx 96 Molecular System and NeuMoDx 288 Molecular System, is an automated, qualitative test for the direct detection of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and or Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) DNA as an aid in the diagnosis of chlamydial and gonococcal urogenital disease in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. The Assay utilizes real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and may be used to test male and female urine, and self-collected vaginal swab specimens (collected in a clinical setting).

The NeuMoDx CT/NG Assay 2.0 is an automated in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (CT/NG) DNA from asymptomatic and symptomatic patient specimens. The assay utilizes real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the amplification of CT and/or NG DNA and fluorogenic targetspecific TaqMan probes for the detection of the amplified DNA. At the end of the test, a determination of the presence/absence of CT and/or NG DNA in the specimen is automatically made based on the amplification status of the CT and/or NG DNA and/or Sample Process Control sequences using pre-established decision criteria. The NeuMoDx CT/NG Assay 2.0 is intended as an aid to diagnose CT and NG infections in symptomatic or asymptomatic individuals, but not to guide or monitor treatment for CT and NG infections. Concomitant cultures may be necessary to recover organisms for epidemiological typing or for further susceptibility testing.

The NeuMoDx CT/NG Assay 2.0 is an automated, qualitative test for the direct detection of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) DNA, designed to aid in the diagnosis of chlamydial and gonococcal urogenital disease in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

Here's an analysis of its acceptance criteria and the study proving its performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for sensitivity and specificity are not explicitly stated as distinct acceptance criteria in the provided text. However, the FDA review process implies that the observed performance must be deemed acceptable. We will present the observed clinical performance as the reported device performance.

Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) Performance

Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) Performance

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Male Urine (CT): 1691
  • Male Urine (NG): 1698
  • Female Urine (CT): 2007
  • Female Urine (NG): 2006
  • Self-Collected Vaginal Swabs (SCVS) (CT): 2016
  • Self-Collected Vaginal Swabs (SCVS) (NG): 2016
• Data Provenance: The study was a "multicenter, pivotal, prospective urogenital specimen collection study" conducted at "14 geographically and demographically diverse U.S. sites."

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

The ground truth was established by a "patient infected status (PIS) algorithm" based on results from two FDA-cleared, legally marketed Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs). The text does not mention the involvement of human experts (e.g., radiologists, clinicians) for establishing the ground truth directly. It relies on the performance of existing, cleared diagnostic devices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method was a pre-specified patient infected status (PIS) algorithm rather than human expert adjudication:

• Female PIS: Established from the results of female urine (FU) and clinician-collected vaginal swab (CCVS) specimens tested by two FDA-cleared NAAT comparator assays. Females were classified as infected if at least one positive result was obtained by each assay. Any other combination was considered non-infected.
• Male PIS: Established using urine results from two FDA-cleared comparator NAATs. If the male urine results were conflicting (one positive, one negative), a third FDA-cleared NAAT method was performed as a tie-breaker to adjudicate male infection status.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs Without AI Assistance

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. The study evaluated the standalone performance of the NeuMoDx CT/NG Assay 2.0 against a PIS algorithm and did not involve 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 study was done. The clinical performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity) were established by comparing the results of the NeuMoDx CT/NG Assay 2.0 (an automated molecular test, essentially an algorithm-only device in its interpretation of PCR data) directly to the patient infected status algorithm. No human interpretation of the device's output and subsequent diagnosis was explicitly included in the reported performance metrics.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used was an expert consensus (of NAATs) / composite reference standard, referred to as a "patient infected status (PIS) algorithm," which was derived from the results of multiple (two, sometimes three) FDA-cleared, legally marketed Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests (NAATs).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly state a training set sample size. This device is a diagnostic assay (molecular test), not typically an AI/machine learning algorithm that undergoes a distinct training phase in the same way an image recognition AI would. The "training" or development of the assay (e.g., primer design, cutoff optimization) would have utilized various analytical studies, but a 'training set' in the context of machine learning is not reported here.

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

As noted above, a distinct "training set" with ground truth established for it in the context of machine learning is not described. The assay's analytical performance (e.g., Limit of Detection, linearity, exclusivity) was characterized using contrived samples (spiked with known concentrations of CT/NG) and known negative samples. For example, the LoD was determined by testing separate dilutions of CT elementary bodies and NG cells in negative matrices, confirming 95% positivity. Inclusivity and cross-reactivity studies used known strains and organisms.

Ask a specific question about this device

The NeuMoDx™ GBS Assay as implemented on the NeuMoDx™ 288 Molecular System is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test designed to detect Group B Streptococcus (GBS) DNA from 18-24 hour Lim broth enrichments of vaginal/rectal swabs from pregnant women. The test incorporates automated DNA extraction to isolate the target nucleic acid from the specimen and real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect an 88 bp region of the pcsB gene sequence in the Streptococcus agalactiae chromosome. Results from the NeuMoDx™ GBS Assay can be used as an aid in determining colonization status in antepartum women.

The NeuMoDx™ GBS Assay does not provide susceptibility results. Cultured isolates are needed for performing susceptibility testing as recommended for penicillin-allergic women.

The NeuMoDx™ GBS Assay (Subject Device) as implemented on the NeuMoDx™ 288 Molecular System is an automated, qualitative, in vitro diagnostic test for the detection of group B Streptococcus (GBS), also known as Streptococcus agalactiae from vaginal/rectal swabs collected from pregnant women at 35 - 37 weeks of gestation and enriched in a commercially available Lim broth medium. An aliquot of an overnight Lim broth culture added to the NeuMoDx™ GBS Assay is used for the testing. All further specimen handling is automated.

The GBS Assay test strip, in combination with required NeuMoDx buffers, extraction reagents, wash and release solutions, as well as the microfluidic cartridge (non-active,) and the fully automated NeuMoDx™ 288 Molecular System (a real time nucleic acid amplification system), utilizes real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the amplification of GBS DNA and fluorogenic target-specific TaqMan® probes for the detection of the amplified GBS DNA. General use components and the System are packaged and provided separately by NeuMoDx.

After the test is processed, a determination of the presence/absence of GBS DNA in the specimen is automatically made based on the amplification status of GBS and the Sample Process Control using preestablished decision criteria. The test results will be reported as Negative, Positive, Indeterminate or Unresolved based on the amplification status of the target and sample processing control. Results are reported based on the decision algorithm noted in Table 1.

The provided text describes the NeuMoDx™ GBS Assay, an in vitro diagnostic test for Group B Streptococcus (GBS), and its performance data to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This is a molecular diagnostic test, not an AI/imaging device, so many of the requested elements pertaining to AI and imaging studies (e.g., number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, effect size of human readers improving with AI) are not applicable. However, I will detail the available information relevant to acceptance criteria and performance as presented in the document.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: For molecular diagnostic devices, acceptance criteria are typically defined by performance characteristics such as sensitivity, specificity, Limit of Detection (LoD), inclusivity, and exclusivity. The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for clinical performance in a table, but it presents the results of a comparative study against a reference method, which implicitly serves as the standard for acceptance. For analytical performance, criteria are demonstrated through detailed studies (e.g., 100% detection rate at LoD).

Clinical Performance:

Analytical Performance:

Study Details:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Done in the table above.

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

   • Clinical Performance Test Set: 1193 specimens with complete, valid, and compliant results were included in the study.
   • Data Provenance: The study was a "prospective clinical method comparison study" conducted at "three (3) geographically diverse laboratory locations." The data were collected from pregnant women in the US (implied by FDA submission to US authority). Specimens were collected for "routine standard of care screening purposes."

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

   • This is a molecular diagnostic test. The "ground truth" for clinical performance was established by "conventional culture methods recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to identify GBS from subcultures of enriched Lim broth." This involves laboratory procedures and standard microbiological protocols rather than expert human interpretation of images. Therefore, the concept of "experts" as in radiologists for imaging is not directly applicable here.
   • The document implies that "qualified laboratory personnel" were involved in processing samples and establishing the ground truth via culture.

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

   • Not applicable as this is a molecular diagnostic test where the ground truth is established by a predefined laboratory culture method, not human adjudication of ambiguous cases. Discordant results between the device and the reference culture method would be analyzed, but not "adjudicated" in the sense of multiple human readers coming to a consensus.

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 a standalone diagnostic device (an automated in vitro diagnostic test) and not an AI-assisted imaging device. There are no "human readers" in the context of interpreting the primary test output or "AI assistance" provided to human readers.

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

   • Yes, the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, LoD, inclusivity, exclusivity, etc.) described for the NeuMoDx™ GBS Assay are "standalone" performance, meaning they relate directly to the output of the automated system. The device automatically determines "Positive, Negative, Indeterminate or Unresolved" results based on pre-established decision criteria (Table 1).

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

   • Clinical Performance Ground Truth: "Conventional culture methods recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to identify GBS from subcultures of enriched Lim broth" (specifically the 2010 CDC guidelines). This is a laboratory-based reference method, considered the "gold standard" for GBS colonization status.
   • Analytical Performance Ground Truth: Established through prepared spiked samples with known concentrations (CFU/mL) of GBS and other organisms.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document describes a 510(k) submission for substantial equivalence, not a de novo premarket submission that typically details a separate training set for a machine learning algorithm.
   • For a molecular diagnostic test like this, "training" often refers to the internal development and optimization of the assay parameters using characterized samples, rather than a distinct "training set" in the machine learning sense. The document does not specify a formal "training set" size.

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

   • As noted above, a formal machine learning "training set" is not explicitly defined. Assay development and optimization would have relied on internally validated methods and known concentrations of GBS and non-GBS organisms to establish parameters such as Ct thresholds and call criteria (Table 1). This process implicitly establishes the "ground truth" for the test's internal logic.

Ask a specific question about this device