Search Results

The Epstein Barr Virus Early Diffuse Antigen (EBV EA-D) IgG ELISA Test is for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies to EBV EA-D as an aid in the diagnosis of EBV infection in patients with clinical symptoms of Infectious Mononucleosis (IM). The PANBIO EBV EA-D IgG ELISA should be used in conjunction with other EBV serologies.

The EBV EA-D IgG ELISA Kit is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of IgG antibodies to EBV EA-D antigen in human serum.

The provided text describes the performance of the PANBIO EBV EA-D IgG ELISA Kit. However, it does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for the device. Instead, it presents various performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) of the PANBIO ELISA and compares them to an equivalent device (Trinity Biotech Captia™ EBV EA-D IgG ELISA) and to the EBV serological status determined by other serologies. The reproducibility and cross-reactivity studies also demonstrate the device's analytical performance.

Since no explicit numerical acceptance criteria are given, I will present the reported performance as if it were the criteria and the device meets it.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As no specific acceptance criteria were explicitly stated, the reported performance characteristics from the primary study sites (Site 2 and Site 3) are presented below. It is implied that these values were deemed acceptable for the device's clearance.

Study Site 2 (Retrospective Sera - Maryland, USA)

Study Site 3 (Prospective Sera - Queensland, Australia)

Reproducibility (Across 3 Australian Sites)

Cross-Reactivity (Study Site 5)

2. Sample sizes for the test set and data provenance:

• Study Site 2:
  • Sample Size: 346 frozen retrospective sera.
  • Data Provenance: Maryland, USA. The samples were submitted to a state health laboratory for EBV testing.
• Study Site 3:
  • Sample Size: 330 prospective sera.
  • Data Provenance: Queensland, Australia. The samples were tested at a private pathology laboratory for EBV testing.
• Reproducibility Study (Sites 3, 4 & 5):
  • Sample Size: 8 sera, each tested 3 times on 3 different days (total 27 tests per sample for analysis).
  • Data Provenance: Three Australian study sites (two private pathology laboratories and PANBIO).
• Cross-Reactivity Study (Site 5):
  • Sample Size: 50 specimens.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated beyond "Study Site 5," but conducted in relation to the Australian reproducibility sites.

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

The text does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test sets. The ground truth ("EBV Status") was determined based on "EBV serological status" defined by a combination of other EBV serologies (VCA IgM, VCA IgG, EBNA IgG), which are established diagnostic markers. This suggests the ground truth was derived from established clinical laboratory testing rather than individual expert adjudication of images or complex clinical cases.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

The term "adjudication method" as typically used for expert review (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is not applicable here. The ground truth was established by interpreting results from a panel of other EBV serological tests (VCA IgG, VCA IgM, EBNA IgG), indicating a "rule-based" or "diagnostic criteria" approach rather than expert consensus on individual case interpretations.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was conducted as this device is an ELISA assay, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool requiring human interpretation improvement. The device itself is designed to provide a result directly.

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

Yes, the studies presented are essentially "standalone" performance evaluations. The EBV EA-D IgG ELISA Kit is an in vitro diagnostic assay. Its performance (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) is assessed based on its ability to detect antibodies in patient samples, independent of real-time human interpretation during the testing process. The "PANBIO results were compared to the EBV status of the sera," meaning the algorithm (the test kit's biochemical reaction and result interpretation) operated independently to produce a classification, which was then compared against the established reference.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The ground truth used was based on EBV serological status determined by a combination of other established EBV serologies:

• Seronegative: VCA IgG (-), VCA IgM (-), EBNA IgG (-)
• Acute Infectious Mononucleosis: VCA IgM (+), EBNA IgG (-)
• Past Infection: VCA IgG (+), VCA IgM (-), EBNA IgG (+)

This can be categorized as diagnostic criteria or reference method comparison using other established laboratory tests.

8. The sample size for the training set:

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" for the ELISA kit. ELISA kits are generally developed and validated using biochemical principles and often use internal reference panels for calibration and quality control. The samples described in the performance studies are test sets used to evaluate the final device's performance, not to "train" an algorithm in the machine learning sense.

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

Since no explicit training set for an algorithm is mentioned, this question is not applicable to the description provided. The "training" of an ELISA kit primarily involves optimizing reagent concentrations, reaction conditions, and cutoff values during its development phase, typically using characterized control samples and internal validation studies, not a large patient-derived training dataset in the AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Epstein Barr Virus Nuclear Antigen (EBNA) IgG ELISA Test is for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies to EBNA in serum as an aid in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of Epstein barr virus (EBV) infection in patients with clinical symptoms consistent with infectious mononucleosis (IM). The PANBIO EBNA IgG ELISA should be used in conjunction with other EBV serologies.

The EBV-EBNA IgG ELISA Kit is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of IgG antibodies to EBV-EBNA antigen in human serum.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the PANBIO EBV-EBNA IgG ELISA Kit:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as numerical targets in the provided document. However, the study results demonstrate that the device performs with high serological sensitivity and specificity, the implied acceptance criteria were likely based on these performance metrics being sufficiently high and comparable to the predicate device. The reproducibility data also indicates consistent performance, which would be an implicit acceptance criterion.

Study Information

Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Study Site 2:
  • Sample Size: 156 frozen sera.
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, collected from a state health laboratory in Maryland, USA.
• Study Site 3:
  • Sample Size: 352 sera.
  • Data Provenance: Prospective, collected from a private pathology laboratory in Queensland, Australia.

Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth:

• The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth.
• Instead, the ground truth (EBV status) for the test sets was established by using "EBV ELISA assays from an alternate manufacturer" and other serological markers (VCA IgG, VCA IgM, EBNA IgG) to categorize samples into Seronegative, Acute Infectious Mononucleosis, and Past Infection groups. This implies that the 'experts' in this context are well-established diagnostic assays and the interpretation of their results by laboratory personnel.

Adjudication Method:

• No explicit adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is mentioned.
• The ground truth was determined by the results of established EBV serological assays from an alternate manufacturer, used as a reference standard. Equivocal samples in Study Site 2 were not retested due to unavailability, and in Study Site 3, due to insufficient sample.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance was not performed. This device is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that aids human interpretation of images or other complex data.

Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

• Yes, the studies directly assess the standalone performance of the PANBIO EBV-EBNA IgG ELISA Kit. The reported sensitivity, specificity, and agreement are measures of the algorithm's (the ELISA kit's) performance compared to the established serological EBV status. There is no human-in-the-loop component in these performance evaluations.

Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth used was expert consensus serology, meaning the classification of samples into "Seronegative," "Acute Infectious Mononucleosis," or "Past Infection" based on multiple established EBV serological markers (VCA IgG, VCA IgM, EBNA IgG) from an alternate manufacturer. It is not pathology, nor direct outcomes data (though the categories correlate with disease state).

Training Set Sample Size:

• The document does not explicitly mention a training set or its sample size for the development of the EBV-EBNA IgG ELISA kit. This is typical for an ELISA kit, where the "training" involves optimizing the assay components and parameters rather than training a machine learning algorithm on a specific dataset. The studies described are performance validation studies.

How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established:

• As no explicit training set is mentioned in the context of machine learning, this question isn't directly applicable. The "ground truth" for the development of such an assay would involve internal quality controls, reference panels, and extensive optimization to ensure the assay reagents and conditions accurately detect the target antibody.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Epstein-Barr Viral Capsid Antigen (VCA) IgM ELISA Test is for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to EBV VCA in serum as an aid in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of EBV infection in patients with clinical symptoms consistent with infectious mononucleosis (IM). The PANBIO EBV VCA IgM ELISA should be used in conjunction with other EBV serology.

The EBV-VCA IgM ELISA Kit is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of IgM antibodies to EBV-VCA antigen in human serum.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the EBV-VCA IgM ELISA Kit, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a separate section with predefined thresholds. However, based on the performance data presented, the implied criteria are high sensitivity, specificity, and agreement compared to established EBV serological tests.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance for Test Sets:

• Study Site 2 (Retrospective Data):
  • Sample Size: 156 frozen retrospective sera.
  • Data Provenance: Maryland, USA. The samples include:
    • 28 seronegative samples
    • 26 samples from patients with acute Infectious Mononucleosis
    • 102 samples from patients with past exposure to EBV
• Study Site 3 (Prospective Data):
  • Sample Size: 352 prospective sera.
  • Data Provenance: Queensland, Australia (private pathology laboratory). The samples include:
    • 48 seronegative samples
    • 42 samples from patients with acute Infectious Mononucleosis
    • 262 samples from patients with past exposure to EBV
• Study Site 5 (Cross-Reactivity Data):
  • Sample Size: 50 specimens from patients with confirmed diseases other than Epstein-Barr Virus.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but generally collected for "potential cross-reactivity" and characterized prior to analysis.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth:

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth. It states that the EBV status of the sera was determined "using EBV ELISA assays from an alternate manufacturer." This implies that the ground truth was established by comparing to existing, established serological methods, not necessarily by individual expert review of each case.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document does not describe an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). The ground truth for the test sets was established by comparison to the results of "EBV ELISA assays from an alternate manufacturer" to determine the EBV status.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) ELISA kit, which is typically evaluated for its analytical and clinical performance against a reference method, not for human reader improvement with AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

Yes, the performance characteristics provided (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) are indicative of the standalone performance of the PANBIO EBV-VCA IgM ELISA kit. There is no human-in-the-loop component described for these performance evaluations.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth used was expert consensus serology based on a panel of "EBV ELISA assays from an alternate manufacturer." The document states:

• "The EBV status of the sera" was determined using alternate manufacturer's assays.
• "Serological" sensitivity and specificity refers to the comparison of the PANBIO assay results to other assays normally used to diagnose EBV associated IM.
• It explicitly notes: "There was not an attempt to correlate the assay's results with disease presence or absence. No judgement can be made on the comparison's accuracy to predict disease." This clarifies that the ground truth is based on established serological markers of EBV infection status (e.g., VCA IgG/IgM, EBNA IgG), rather than direct pathology or outcomes data for the individuals.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not mention a training set or any deep learning/machine learning model that would require one. The EBV-VCA IgM ELISA Kit is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), which is a biochemical assay, not a software algorithm that is "trained."

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

Since there is no training set described for this ELISA kit, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Epstein Barr Virus Viral Capsid Antigen (EBV-VCA) IgG ELISA Test is for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies to EBV-VCA in serum as an aid in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of EBV infection in patients with clinical symptoms consistent with infectious mononucleosis (IM). The PANBIO EBV-VCA IgG ELISA should be used in conjunction with other EBV serologies.

The EBV-VCA IgG ELISA Kit is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of IgG antibodies to EBV-VCA antigen in human serum.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for PANBIO EBV-VCA IgG ELISA Kit

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria values for the performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, and agreement). However, it reports the calculated performance against the defined EBV status. For the purpose of this response, the reported performance values will be considered as effectively meeting the implicit criteria for substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

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

• Study Site 2 (USA):
  • Sample Size: 156 frozen retrospective sera.
  • Data Provenance: Maryland, USA. The samples were retrospective, meaning they were collected in the past for other purposes (EBV testing) and then re-analyzed.
• Study Site 3 (Australia):
  • Sample Size: 352 prospective sera.
  • Data Provenance: Queensland, Australia. The samples were prospective, meaning they were collected specifically for this study.
• Cross-Reactivity Study (Study Site 5):
  • Sample Size: 29 specimens.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated for specific geography, but the study was conducted to establish analytical specificity for the EBV-VCA IgG ELISA Test.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the "EBV status" of the sera in either Study Site 2 or Study Site 3. The ground truth (EBV Status) was determined using "EBV ELISA assays from an alternate manufacturer" and other EBV serologies (VCA IgM, EBNA IgG) to categorize samples as "Seronegative," "Acute Infectious Mononucleosis," or "Past Infection." This implies reliance on established laboratory diagnostic methods rather than individual expert adjudication of raw data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable in the traditional sense of human expert adjudication. The "EBV Status" (ground truth) was established through the results of other EBV ELISA assays and serological markers, not by human experts adjudicating the PANBIO device's results. The comparison was to an established diagnostic status determined by alternative, presumably validated, methods.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size of Human Improvement with AI vs. Without AI Assistance:

This information is not applicable. The device described is an in vitro diagnostic ELISA kit for detecting antibodies in serum, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool requiring human-in-the-loop performance evaluation or MRMC studies.

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

Yes, the studies presented (Study Site 2 and Study Site 3) evaluate the standalone performance of the PANBIO EBV-VCA IgG ELISA kit. The results (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) are calculated solely based on the device's output compared to the established EBV status of the samples. There is no mention of human interpretation or involvement in the final classification of the device's results.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth used was expert consensus on serological markers/established diagnostic assays. For the sensitivity and specificity studies (Study Site 2 & 3), the "EBV Status" was determined by a combination of other EBV serological assays (VCA IgG, VCA IgM, EBNA IgG) from an alternate manufacturer. For the cross-reactivity study, the ground truth was "confirmed disease other than Epstein Barr Virus" as characterized prior to analysis.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not explicitly state a separate "training set" size. For an ELISA kit, development often involves optimization and calibration using various samples, but these are typically not referred to as a "training set" in the same way as machine learning models. The provided studies focus on validation/test sets.

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

As there is no explicitly defined "training set" for the purpose of a machine learning model, the method for establishing its ground truth is not provided. The development and calibration of an ELISA kit involve establishing cutoff values and validating reagent performance, which would inherently rely on characterized samples but not a "training set" in the AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device