Search Results

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Discs are for the semi-quantitative susceptibility testing by agar diffusion test procedure of rapidly growing micro-organisms. For Ertapenem these include: Staphylococcus aureus (methicillin susceptible isolates only), Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pneumoniae (penicillin susceptible isolates only), Streptococcus pyogenes, Escherichia coli, Haemophilus influenzae (Beta-lactamase negative isolates only), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Proteus mirabilis.

Not Found

The provided text is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance letter for a medical device called "Ertapenem Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Disc." This document does not contain the acceptance criteria or a study description the way the user's request expects for AI/ML-driven medical devices.

The FDA clearance for this device focuses on its "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device. This means the device performs similarly to an existing device, and the clearance process for such in vitro diagnostic devices typically involves clinical studies to establish performance characteristics like accuracy, precision, and reproducibility. However, the details of such a study are not provided in this specific letter.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request as the necessary information (acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, etc.) is not present in the provided text. The device described is an Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Disc, which is a physical diagnostic tool for laboratory use, not an AI/ML-driven device, so many of the requested categories (e.g., MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, training set) are not applicable in their typical sense for this product.

Ask a specific question about this device

Tigecycline is indicated for Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and by modified procedures Haemophilus influenzae, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Streptococcus pnemoniae.

Not Found

The provided text is related to a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device: "Tigecycline Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Disc." This document is a clearance letter from the FDA, indicating that the device has been found substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

However, the document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or multi-reader multi-case studies. It is a regulatory clearance document, not a scientific study report.

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

To be clear:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not available in the provided text.
• Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not available.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not available.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not available.
• If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not available.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not available (this device is a physical test disc, not an algorithm).
• The type of ground truth used: Not available.
• The sample size for the training set: Not available (training set would not be applicable in the typical sense for this device).
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not available.

Ask a specific question about this device

Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Discs are for the semi-quantitative susceptibility testing by agar diffusion test procedure of rapidly growing micro-organisms. For Daptomycin these include Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA), Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus dysgalactiae subsp. equisimilis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Enterococcus faecalis (vancomycin-susceptible strains only).

Not Found

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Oxoid Daptomycin Susceptibility Test Disc, focusing on the requested criteria for device acceptance and its supporting study:

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the Oxoid Daptomycin Susceptibility Test Disc. This type of document declares "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than a full de novo approval based on extensive clinical trials for a novel device. Therefore, the information typically available for novel medical devices regarding detailed acceptance criteria, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment in a study report is not present in this 510(k) clearance letter.

However, based on the nature of antimicrobial susceptibility testing devices, we can infer some general principles and what would typically be expected, even if the specific data isn't in this document.

Inference Based on Standard AST Device Clearance

For Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Discs, FDA clearance relies heavily on demonstrating performance (e.g., accuracy against a reference method) for identifying susceptible, intermediate, and resistant categories for specific microorganisms. The "study" here is typically a comparison to a recognized reference method for antimicrobial susceptibility.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is a 510(k) premarket notification for an Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test (AST) Disc, the acceptance criteria and performance are typically related to the accuracy of categorizing isolates as Susceptible (S), Intermediate (I), or Resistant (R) when compared to a gold standard reference method (e.g., broth microdilution or agar dilution).

Inferred Table based on typical AST device clearance for a qualitative/semi-quantitative test:

Explanation:

• Essential Agreement (EA): Agreement within ±1 doubling dilution of the reference method's MIC value; often reflects the zone diameter correlation.
• Categorical Agreement (CA): Agreement in the final S, I, or R category assigned.
• Major Discrepancy (MD): The test device calls an isolate susceptible (S) or intermediate (I) while the reference method calls it resistant (R). (Incorrectly treats a resistant organism).
• Very Major Discrepancy (VMD): The test device calls an isolate resistant (R) while the reference method calls it susceptible (S) or intermediate (I). (Incorrectly treats a susceptible organism, leading to potential treatment failure).
• Minor Discrepancy (mD): One method calls an isolate susceptible (S) or resistant (R) while the other calls it intermediate (I), or vice-versa. (Less critical than MD or VMD but still tracked).

Note: The specific numerical acceptance criteria can vary slightly depending on the drug and organism, but the percentages listed above are broadly representative for AST devices.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in this document. For AST devices, typical studies involve testing a significant number of isolates (e.g., hundreds) for each organism/drug combination, encompassing various resistance mechanisms if relevant. This includes a balanced representation of S, I, and R categories.
• Data Provenance: Not specified in this document. AST studies are often conducted at multiple clinical microbiology laboratories to ensure generalizability. They are typically prospective or use a banked collection of retrospective isolates specifically chosen to represent clinical diversity and resistance profiles relevant to the drug. The country of origin would be global for a company like Oxoid, but specific study sites are not mentioned here.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable in the context of AST disc studies in the way it applies to image-based AI. The "ground truth" for AST is not established by expert visual interpretation/consensus.
• Qualifications of Experts: The "experts" in AST are typically trained laboratory personnel following standardized reference testing methodologies (e.g., CLSI or EUCAST guidelines). These individuals perform the reference broth microdilution or agar dilution tests, which serve as the gold standard.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. The "ground truth" in AST is a quantitative measurement (Minimal Inhibitory Concentration - MIC) obtained via a reference method, which then translates into categorical (S, I, R) results. Discrepancies between the investigational device and the reference method are analyzed numerically, not by expert adjudication of conflicting interpretations. Discrepant results, however, are often re-tested by both methods to confirm the initial findings.

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

• MRMC Study: No, highly unlikely. MRMC studies are specific to diagnostic tools where human interpretation of complex images or data is central, and the AI's role is to assist or augment that interpretation. AST discs are a semi-quantitative laboratory test and do not involve human "readers" interpreting images in a way that an MRMC study would be relevant. The performance is assessed against an objective reference method, not against human variability in interpreting the disc zone.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop) Performance Was Done

• Standalone Performance: Yes, in essence. The entire premise of an AST disc is a standalone performance test. A technician prepares the plate, applies the disc, incubates, and then measures the zone of inhibition. This measurement is then interpreted against predefined breakpoints. The "device performance" relies solely on the physical disc's ability to diffuse the antimicrobial and inhibit bacterial growth, leading to a measurable zone that correlates with susceptibility. There isn't a separate "algorithm" in the AI sense, but rather a set of established breakpoints and measurement standards.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground Truth Type: For AST devices, the ground truth is established by a standardized reference method (e.g., broth microdilution, agar dilution, or a validated automated system) that quantitatively determines the Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of the antimicrobial against the specific bacterial isolate. This MIC value is then categorized into Susceptible (S), Intermediate (I), or Resistant (R) based on established clinical breakpoints (e.g., CLSI M100 document). This is a form of objective laboratory measurement rather than subjective expert consensus or pathology.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable in the typical AI sense. AST discs are not "trained" like machine learning algorithms. Their performance is inherent in the chemical composition of the disc and the diffusion properties of the antimicrobial. Development involves optimizing the drug concentration in the disc and correlating zone diameters with MIC values, which could involve empirical testing on many isolates, but it's not a "training set" for an algorithm.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set Establishment: Not applicable as described for AI. The "ground truth" for developing the correlation between disc zone diameters and MIC values (which guides optimal disc concentration and breakpoint setting) is established through extensive studies where MICs are determined by a reference method (e.g., broth microdilution) for a wide range of bacterial isolates, and simultaneously, the corresponding zone diameters are measured for the investigational disc. This allows for regression analysis and determination of appropriate zone diameter breakpoints that correlate with the clinical MIC breakpoints.

Ask a specific question about this device

This Kit detects penicillin binding protein 2' in isolates of Staphylococcus as an aid in identifying Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci.

PBP21 Latex Agglutination Test

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification approval letter for the Oxoid PBP2' Latex Agglutination Test. It includes a general description of the device and its intended use, but it does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer all sections of your request. Specifically, it lacks the actual study design, acceptance criteria, reported performance, and ground truth establishment methods.

Based on the information available, here's what can be extracted:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria or provide a table of reported device performance values such as sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy. It only states the device's indications for use.

Study Information

The document is a regulatory approval letter and does not include the details of the study that underpinned the 510(k) submission. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding the study is not available in this text.

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 the test set: Not specified in the provided text.
• Data provenance: Not specified in the provided text.

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 available in the provided text, as the method for establishing ground truth is not described.

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

• This information is not available in the provided text, as the study design is not described.

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 latex agglutination test, which is a laboratory diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted imaging device or system that would typically involve human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study with human readers and AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device and is not mentioned.

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

• This device is a standalone diagnostic test kit that provides a direct result for the presence of PBP2'. Its performance is inherently "standalone" in that it produces a result without human interpretation of complex images or data that an algorithm might process. However, the document does not describe the specific performance study that would detail whether "standalone" performance in a clinical laboratory setting was evaluated and how.

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

• The document does not specify the type of ground truth used. For an antimicrobial susceptibility test, ground truth would typically be established by a reference method for detecting PBP2' or by phenotypic susceptibility testing interpreted against clinical breakpoints (e.g., oxacillin or cefoxitin disk diffusion, broth microdilution).

8. The sample size for the training set

• This information is not available in the provided text. As this is a latex agglutination test, the concept of a "training set" in the context of machine learning algorithms is not directly applicable. However, similar to an algorithm, the test would have been developed and optimized using a set of isolates, but the document does not detail this.

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

• This information is not available in the provided text for the reasons mentioned above.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory letter of approval and not the detailed technical submission or study report itself. Therefore, much of the specific study design and performance data you requested is absent.

Ask a specific question about this device

Oxoid Pylori Test Kit is a rapid latex agglutination test for the qualitative detection of Helicobacter onlori total antibodies in serum as an aid in the diagnosis of infections by H. pylori. The product is intended for use to test patients 18 years and older, with symptoms of gastro-intestinal disorders.

rapid latex agglutination test

I am sorry, but based on the provided text, there is no information about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance. The document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the Oxoid Pylori Test Kit, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device and its intended use. It does not contain the detailed study information you are requesting.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Oxoid Dryspot E.coli 0157 test is a latex agglutination test for the identification of E.coli serogroup 0157 in colonies isolated from Sorbitol MacConkey (SMAC) Agar or SMAC Agar with Cefixime Tellurite Supplement. The test is not indicated for direct testing of faccal specimens.

latex agglutination test

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device, the Oxoid Dryspot E. coli 0157 Kit. It confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device and can be marketed. However, this document primarily focuses on regulatory clearance and does not contain the detailed study information needed to describe acceptance criteria and device performance as requested.

Therefore, I cannot provide a complete answer to your request based solely on the provided text. The document does not include:

• A table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance.
• Sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, or details about training sets.
• Information about expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies.
• Details on standalone performance or the type of ground truth used.

To answer your request, I would need access to the actual 510(k) submission document itself, which typically contains the technical and clinical data supporting the substantial equivalence claim. This clearance letter is merely the FDA's decision based on that submission.

Ask a specific question about this device