Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

The Glucose Hexokinase reagent set is intended to be used in a diagnostic laboratory setting by qualified laboratory technologists for the quantitative determination of glucose in human serum and plasma on the Pointe 360 Analyzer. It is for In Vitro diagnostic use only. The determination of glucose in serum and plasma is for use in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes mellitus.

The Pointe 360 is a computerized bench top laboratory instrument. It is capable of automating all stages of assay processing that involve incubation, reagent delivery, mixing, optical reading, calculating, data storage and reporting within specified limits. The glucose reagent set for the Pointe 360 is an assay for the determination of glucose in plasma or serum.

The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the "Pointe 360 Glucose Hexokinase Reagent Set" to a predicate device, the "Roche Diagnostics Glucose/HK on the Hitachi 917". The studies described are for the performance of an in vitro diagnostic reagent and its associated analyzer, not an AI/ML powered device. As such, many of the requested categories for AI/ML device studies (e.g., number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC studies, training set details) are not applicable to this document.

However, I can extract information related to the acceptance criteria and the device performance for this specific medical device, which is a chemical reagent and an analyzer.

Here's a breakdown of the relevant information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly define "acceptance criteria" in a separate section with pass/fail thresholds. Instead, it presents performance characteristics for the proposed device (Pointe 360 Glucose Hexokinase Reagent and Pointe 360 analyzer) and compares them to the predicate device (Roche Diagnostics Glucose/HK and Hitachi 917). The implicit acceptance criteria are that the Pointe 360's performance is comparable to or better than the predicate device, or within generally accepted analytical performance ranges for glucose measurement.

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

The document does not explicitly state a test set in the way an AI/ML model would have one. Instead, it refers to "samples" for precision studies and "serum/plasma" for correlation.

• Precision Studies:
  • For "Within Day" precision, Sample 1, 2, and 3 have means of 81, 276, and 468 mg/dl respectively. The 'N' value is missing for the proposed device's precision, but for the predicate, it states 'N=63' for all samples. This suggests a number of replicates were run for each sample level to calculate SD and CV.
  • For "Day to Day" precision, Sample 1, 2, and 3 have means of 81, 261, and 451 mg/dl respectively. Again, 'N' is missing for the proposed device, while 'N=63' for the predicate.
• Interference Study: The document states "This data was generated using the Pointe 360 analyzer." but does not specify the number of samples or the provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Correlation Study: No specific sample size (N) is given for the correlation studies for either serum or plasma.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic device that measures a chemical analyte (glucose). "Ground truth" is established by the reference method or accuracy of the measurement itself, not by expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. There is no human interpretation or adjudication involved in the output of this device.

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 not an AI/ML powered device, nor does it involve human readers interpreting cases.

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

The device itself is a standalone instrument for performing the glucose assay. Its performance characteristics listed (linearity, LOD, precision, correlation, interference) are all measures of the algorithm/reagent/analyzer system's intrinsic performance. There isn't an "algorithm only" component separate from the physical device in this context.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" implicitly used for an in vitro diagnostic device measuring glucose would typically be:

• Reference method comparison: Comparison against a highly accurate and precise reference method (e.g., isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) or specific enzymatic methods). While not explicitly stated here, "Correlation" studies often imply comparison to a gold standard or a well-established method. The regression equations provided (e.g., y = 0.960x + 3.1) suggest a comparison against another method (where 'x' would likely be the reference method result).
• Known concentration samples: For linearity, precision, and limit of detection, samples with known, prepared concentrations of glucose are used.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set." The development of the reagent and analyzer involves chemical engineering and instrument design, not machine learning training.

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

Not applicable. No training set for an AI/ML model.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is to be used for the quantitative determination of carbon dioxide in human serum by spectrophotometric analysis. The determination of the level of carbon dioxide in serum is commonly performed as an indicator of acid-base balance disturbances.

Carbon Dioxide Liquid Stable Reagent

I am sorry, but based on the provided text, there is no information about acceptance criteria, a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, multi-reader multi-case studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, or training set details.

The text is a regulatory clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device called "Carbon Dioxide Liquid Stable Reagent." It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices and outlines regulatory requirements for marketing. It does not contain any performance study data or details about criteria for such a study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Chemistry calibrator is for use as a calibrator of Pointe Scientific, Inc. clinical chemistry assays. The analyte constituents, set-point values and instruments are provided in the product labeling.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a Multi-Analyze Chemistry Calibrator. This document approves the device based on its substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

It is crucial to understand that this document does not contain information about the performance or acceptance criteria of a diagnostic imaging AI device. Instead, it concerns an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) calibrator product. Therefore, the details requested in the prompt, such as "test set," "ground truth," "MRMC study," "human readers improve with AI," and "standalone algorithm performance," are not applicable to the content provided.

The document discusses regulatory approval for a calibrator, not a device that analyzes images or medical data for diagnosis using AI.

As such, I cannot extract the requested information as it is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Pointe Scientific, Inc. Ammonia / alcohol Control set is to be used for monitoring the accuracy and precision of various ammonia and / or ethanol assay methods and to validate quantitation of patient samples. The controls contain components of known concentrations and are an integral part of diagnostic procedures. Daily monitoring of control values establishes intralaboratory parameters for accuracy and precision of the test method.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification approval letter for the Pointe Scientific, Inc. Ammonia/Alcohol Control Set. This document does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, or details relevant to AI/ML device testing.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications
4. Adjudication method for the test set
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size
6. If a standalone performance study was done
7. The type of ground truth used
8. The sample size for the training set
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Ask a specific question about this device

These products are to be used for the quantitative determination of apolipoprotein A1 and apolipoprotein B in human serum by immunoturbidimetric analysis. The determination of apolipoprotein A1 and apolipoprotein B are commonly performed as an aid in the assessment of individuals who are at risk for developing coronary artery disease.

Not Found

The provided text is a clearance letter from the FDA for an in vitro diagnostic device, specifically for Apolipoprotein A1 and Apolipoprotein B reagents and calibrators. This document is a regulatory approval and does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications for a device performance study.

The letter states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices and outlines general regulatory compliance requirements. It does not include data from a specific performance study.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request using the provided text. To answer your questions, I would need a document detailing the actual performance study conducted for the device's clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is to be used for the quantitative determination of Electrolytes (Sodium, Potassium and Chloride) in human serum. The determination of Electrolytes is most commonly performed for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases causing an electrolyte imbalance. Sodium determinations are offen used in the diagnosis and treatment of aldosteronism, diabetes insipidus, adrenal hypertension, Addisons disease and a number of other diseases involving electrolyte imbalance. Potassium measurements are used to monitor electrolyte imbalance in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases characterized by low and high potassium levels. Chloride measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of electrolyte and metabolic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and diabetic acidosis.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA to Pointe Scientific Inc. regarding their ISE Diluent, 1N KCL Internal Reference, and ISE standards Low and High. This document is a regulatory approval and does not contain the information requested about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request using the provided input. This document does not describe device performance or any studies conducted to evaluate it.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is to be used in a diagnostic laboratory setting, by qualified laboratory personnel, for the quantitative determination of direct and total bilirubin in human serum. It is intended for in vitro diagnostic use only. Studies suggest that direct and total bilirubin measurements provide information to assist in the assessment of liver function and conditions such as hemolytic and obstructive jaundice.

Not Found

This is a premarket notification for a Class II medical device, not a study. Therefore, the information requested in the prompt (acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, etc.) is not applicable in the typical sense of a clinical or performance study. The 510(k) process is about demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily proving new performance against set acceptance criteria through a standalone study.

However, based on the provided text, I can extract information relevant to the device and its intended use, and explain why the study-related questions are not directly answerable from this document.

Device Name: Hitachi Direct Bilirubin/Hitachi Total Bilirubin

Regulation Number: 21 CFR 862.1110

Regulation Name: Bilirubin (total or direct) test system

Regulatory Class: Class II

Product Code: CIG

Here's an attempt to address the prompt, noting the limitations of the provided document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
   • This document does not specify quantitative "acceptance criteria" in the way a clinical study protocol would, nor does it present "reported device performance" against such criteria. The 510(k) submission mechanism demonstrates substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This typically involves showing that the new device performs as well as, or comparably to, the predicate device across various metrics (e.g., precision, accuracy, linearity, interferences). However, the specific data for this comparison is not included in this FDA clearance letter.

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

   • This information is not available in the provided FDA clearance letter. Such details would be part of the manufacturer's 510(k) submission, which is not publicly disclosed in this summary form. The clearance letter only states that the device was found substantially equivalent based on the submitted information.

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)

   • Not applicable/Not provided. For an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay like bilirubin measurement, the "ground truth" would typically be established by reference methods or highly accurate laboratory methods, not by expert consensus in the way a diagnostic imaging study might. The specifics of how accuracy/truth was ascertained for the test samples used in the 510(k) submission are not in this document.

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

   • Not applicable/Not provided. This typically refers to adjudication of discrepancies among human readers or expert interpretations, which is not directly relevant for an automated IVD assay's performance evaluation against a reference method.

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 device is an automated in vitro diagnostic test for bilirubin, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device or an AI tool meant to improve human reader performance. Its purpose is to quantitatively measure bilirubin levels in serum.

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

   • Yes, in a sense. The device is a "standalone" automated assay intended for use "in a diagnostic laboratory setting, by qualified laboratory personnel, for the quantitative determination of direct and total bilirubin in human serum." The performance shown in the 510(k) submission would have been the device's output (quantitative bilirubin levels) compared to reference methods or a predicate device. It is not an "algorithm only" in the modern AI sense, but an automated chemical analysis system. The human involvement is in operating the instrument and interpreting the results within a clinical context, not in directly forming the diagnostic output.

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

   • For an IVD bilirubin assay, the "ground truth" for evaluating accuracy would typically be established by:
     • Reference methods: Highly accurate and precise laboratory methods (e.g., ID-LC-MS/MS, or established spectrophotometric methods).
     • Comparison to a legally marketed predicate device: This is the primary method for a 510(k) submission, where the new device's results are compared to those of an already cleared device across a range of samples.
   • The specific method used for the Hitachi device is not detailed in this clearance letter.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not applicable. This device is a chemical analyzer, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "development" would involve chemical and engineering principles, calibration, and optimization, not data-driven machine learning training.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is to be used for the quantitative determination of hemoglobin A1c in human blood. The determination of hemoglobin A1c is most commonly performed for the evaluation of glycemic control in diabetes. Hemoglobin A1c values provide an indication of glucose levels over the preceding 4-8 weeks. A higher hemoglobin A1c value indicates poorer glycemic control. This reagent set is intended for in vitro diagnostic use only.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a Hemoglobin A1c Reagent Set. It primarily confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. This type of document does not contain the detailed study information required to answer your questions about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement.

The FDA 510(k) clearance process relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence, often by comparing the new device's performance to an already cleared predicate device. The specific performance data and studies used to establish this equivalence are typically found in the full 510(k) submission, which is not publicly available in this extract.

Therefore, many of your questions cannot be answered from the provided text.

Here's what can be inferred or stated about the lack of information:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not specified in the provided document. The 510(k) focused on "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, implying the predicate's performance served as the benchmark.
• Reported Device Performance: Not detailed in the provided document.

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not mentioned.
• Data Provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not mentioned.

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

• Number of Experts: Not mentioned.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not mentioned.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not mentioned.

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 reagent set for a laboratory test, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device or an AI assistant for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device.

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

• This is a reagent set, not an algorithm. The concept of "standalone algorithm performance" is not applicable. The device's performance would be evaluated in a laboratory setting, likely against reference methods or established predicate devices.

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

• For a diagnostic reagent set like Hemoglobin A1c, ground truth would typically be established by a reference method for HbA1c measurement, or possibly correlation with patient clinical status/outcomes (though the latter is less direct for a single assay validation). The specific ground truth method used is not detailed in the provided document.

8. The sample size for the training set

• For a reagent set, the concept of a "training set" as it applies to machine learning algorithms is not directly applicable. Performance validation relies on clinical sample testing and analytical studies rather than algorithm training. Any "training" would pertain to optimizing reagent formulations or assay parameters, not a data set for an AI model.

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

• See answer to #8. Not applicable in the context of AI development.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter confirms regulatory approval based on "substantial equivalence" but does not offer the detailed technical and clinical study information needed to address your specific questions about acceptance criteria, performance metrics, and study methodology. This information would typically be found in the comprehensive 510(k) submission document itself, which is not included here.

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is to be used in a diagnostic laboratory setting, by qualified laboratory technologists, for the quantitative determination of low level albumin in human Urine. It is intended for in vitro diagnostic use only. Microalbumin has been reported in several studies to predict development of diabetic nephropathy and its mortality risk. Measurement of urine albumin is a useful indicator of early glomerular disease.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the detailed information necessary to complete the acceptance criteria table and the study description as requested. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter, which confirms substantial equivalence to a predicate device but does not typically include the detailed performance study results, sample sizes, ground truth establishment methods, or expert qualifications that would be present in a submission for acceptance criteria.

The information I can extract is limited to:

• Device Name: Microalbumin
• Intended Use: Quantitative determination of low-level albumin in human urine, for in vitro diagnostic use in a diagnostic laboratory setting by qualified laboratory technologists. It is indicated as a useful indicator of early glomerular disease and to predict the development of diabetic nephropathy and its mortality risk.
• Regulatory Class: Class II
• Product Code: DDZ; JIT

To fulfill your request, I would need a different type of document, such as a summary of safety and effectiveness data (SSE) or the full 510(k) submission, which often includes details of the performance studies.

Ask a specific question about this device