Search Filters

Search Results

Found 3 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K181514
    Date Cleared
    2019-06-13

    (370 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    866.3305
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Applicant Name (Manufacturer) :

    Quest International, Inc.

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The SeraQuest HSV Type 2 Specific IgG assay is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) intended for the qualitative detection of human IgG antibodies to type 2 herpes simplex virus (HSV) in human serum. The test is indicated for sexually active individuals and expectant mothers as an aid in the presumptive diagnosis of HSV-2 infection. The predictive value of a positive or negative result depends on the prevalence of HSV-2 infection in the pre-test likelihood of HSV-2 infection.

    The test is not FDA cleared for screening blood or plasma donors. The performance of this assay has not been established for immunocompromised patients, pediatric patients or matrices other than human serum.

    Device Description

    The SeraQuest® HSV Type 2 Specific IgG test is a solid-phase enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA), which is performed in microwells, at room temperature, and in three thirty-minute incubations. The test detects IgG antibodies which are directed against HSV 2 type-specific antigens in human serum. The Calibrator in the SeraQuest® HSV Type 2 Specific IgG test set has been assigned Index values based on an in-house standard. Test results are reported as Index values.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document describes the performance of the SeraQuest® HSV Type 2 Specific IgG assay when performed on the ChemWell® Automated Analyzer, comparing it to the previously cleared manual method.

    Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a dedicated section. However, the "Method Comparison Study" presents the core performance metrics (Positive Percent Agreement and Negative Percent Agreement) against the predicate device. For the purpose of this response, we infer that high agreement with the predicate device is the acceptance criterion.

    Acceptance Criterion (Inferred from Study Design)Reported Device Performance (ChemWell Automated Analyzer vs. Manual Method)
    High Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) with predicate device100% (125/125)
    High Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) with predicate device99.01% (100/101)

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

    • Sample Size for Test Set: 226 samples.
    • Data Provenance: Samples were developed from "remnants of patient samples and samples from vendors." Additional samples were prepared by spiking negative samples with positive samples or dilution with diluent reagent to span the range of the assay's measuring interval. The country of origin is not specified, but it can be inferred as being related to the applicant's location (Palm City, Florida, USA). The study appears to be a retrospective evaluation using existing or manufactured samples.

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

    The ground truth for the test set was established by comparison against a predicate device (manual method), not by independent expert interpretation. Therefore, experts were not explicitly used to establish the ground truth for this device in the context of this study. The "ground truth" here is the result obtained from the established manual method.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    No adjudication method using multiple readers or experts is described, as the comparison is between two automated/semi-automated assay methods (the new device vs. the predicate). The "truth" for the comparison was the result generated by the manual method.

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

    No Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done. This study focuses on the equivalence of an automated assay to a manual assay, not on human reader performance.

    6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

    Yes, a standalone comparison was done. The study directly compares the performance of the "SeraQuest® HSV Type 2 Specific IgG assay performed by ChemWell® Automated Analyzer" (the new device) against the "SeraQuest® HSV Type 2 Specific IgG assay performed by Manual Method" (the predicate device). This evaluates the algorithm/device performance independently of human interpretation, focusing on concordance between the two methods.

    7. Type of Ground Truth Used

    The type of ground truth used was comparison to a predicate device (manual assay results). This means the "truth" for evaluating the automated analyzer was the result provided by the already cleared manual method.

    8. Sample Size for the Training Set

    The document does not explicitly mention a separate training set or its sample size. The study focuses on verifying the performance of the automated analyzer against the predicate manual method using the 226 samples for method comparison and additional samples for precision studies.

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

    Since a separate training set is not explicitly described, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not detailed. The validation approach is based on demonstrating equivalence to an existing, cleared method.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K162276
    Date Cleared
    2016-10-01

    (50 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    866.3305
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Applicant Name (Manufacturer) :

    QUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    For In Vitro Diagnostic Use Only. The SeraQuest HSV Type 1 Specific IgG assay is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) intended for the qualitative detection of human IgG antibodies to type 1 herpes simplex virus (HSV) in human serum. The test is indicated for sexually active individuals and expectant mothers as an aid in the presumptive diagnosis of HSV-1 infection. The predictive value of a positive result depends on the prevalence of HSV-1 infection in the population and the pre-test likelihood of HSV-1 infection.

    The test is not FDA cleared for screening blood or plasma donors. The performance of this assay has not been established for immunocompromised patients, pediatric patients or matrices other than human serum.

    Device Description

    The SeraQuest® HSV Type 1 Specific IgG test is a solid-phase enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA), which is performed in microwells, at room temperature, and in three thirty minute incubations. The test detects IqG antibodies which are directed against HSV 1 type-specific antigens in human serum. The Calibrator in the SeraQuest® HSV Type 1 Specific IgG test set has been assigned Index values based on an in-house standard. Test results are reported as Index values.

    AI/ML Overview

    The SeraQuest HSV Type 1 Specific IgG assay is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) intended for the qualitative detection of human IgG antibodies to type 1 herpes simplex virus (HSV) in human serum.

    Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the studies performed:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
    Acceptance Criteria / Performance MetricSeraQuest HSV Type 1 Specific IgG Performance for Sexually Active AdultsSeraQuest HSV Type 1 Specific IgG Performance for Expectant MothersSeraQuest HSV Type 1 Specific IgG Performance with CDC Panel
    Sensitivity92.3% (95% CI: 85.0% to 96.2%)93.3% (95% CI: 87.3% to 96.6%)91.3% (42/46 positive, 2 equivocal, 2 negative)
    Specificity91.7% (95% CI: 83.2% to 96.2%)89.4% (95% CI: 87.1% to 93.7%)98.1% (53/54 negative, 1 equivocal)

    Note: The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "Sensitivity must be >= X%"). Instead, it presents the results of a comparison study against a predicate device and a CDC panel, inferring that the performance achieved is deemed acceptable for substantial equivalence.

    1. Sample Size and Data Provenance

      • Test Set (Comparative Study with Predicate Device):
        • Sexually Active Adults: 164 serum samples.
        • Expectant Mothers: 242 serum samples (198 during the first trimester, 19 during the second, 25 during the third).
        • Data Provenance: Prospectively collected, masked, and archived serum samples submitted for HSV serology to clinical laboratories in the Southeastern United States (for sexually active adults) and Northeastern and Southeastern United States (for expectant mothers). This indicates prospective data collection from the United States.
      • Test Set (CDC Panel): 100 serum samples (46 HSV-1 IgG positive, 54 HSV-1 IgG negative).
        • Data Provenance: This is a characterized serum panel provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The specific country of origin for individual samples within the CDC panel is not specified, but the panel itself is a US-based reference.
    2. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

      • The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for the comparative studies.
      • For the comparative study, the predicate device (Focus HerpeSelect® 1 and 2 Immunoblot IgG) served as the reference standard. The ground truth was based on the results of this legally marketed predicate device.
      • For the CDC panel, the CDC HSV 1 Result was used as the ground truth. This panel is composed of "well characterized serum panel" but the methods or experts used by CDC to characterize it are not detailed in this document.
    3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

      • No adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is mentioned for the test set. The results are directly compared to the predicate device's findings or the CDC's characterization of the panel.
    4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

      • No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. The device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an imaging device typically evaluated with human readers. Therefore, there is no discussion of human reader improvement with or without AI assistance.
    5. Standalone Performance

      • Yes, standalone performance was done. The entire submission details the performance of the SeraQuest HSV Type 1 Specific IgG assay as a standalone device, directly comparing its results to a legally marketed predicate device (immunoblot) and a characterized CDC panel. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, precision) are derived from the device's independent operation.
    6. Type of Ground Truth Used

      • Comparative Studies: The ground truth was established by another legally marketed device (predicate device): the Focus HerpeSelect® 1 and 2 Immunoblot IgG.
      • CDC Panel: The ground truth was based on the characterization of the CDC serum panel, which is described as "well characterized."
    7. Sample Size for the Training Set

      • The document does not explicitly state a "training set" size. For IVD devices, the development and optimization of the assay might involve internal studies and smaller panels, but these are typically not referred to as a separate "training set" in the same way machine learning models are. The performance studies presented are generally considered validation studies on independent test sets.
    8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

      • As no explicit "training set" is mentioned in the context of this IVD device, the method for establishing its ground truth is not provided. The document focuses on the validation of the device against established external references.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K152353
    Date Cleared
    2016-05-13

    (267 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    866.3305
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Applicant Name (Manufacturer) :

    Quest International, Inc.

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Intended Use: For In Vitro Diagnostic Use Only. The SeraQuest HSV Type 2 Specific IgG assay is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) intended for the qualitative detection of human IgG antibodies to type 2 herpes simplex virus (HSV) in human serum. The test is indicated for sexually active individuals and expectant mothers as an aid in the presumptive diagnosis of HSV-2 infection. The predictive value of a positive or negative result depends on the prevalence of HSV-2 infection in the population and the pre-test likelihood of HSV-2 infection.

    The test is not FDA cleared for screening blood or plasma donors. The performance of this assay has not been established for immunocompromised patients, pediatric patients or matrices other than human serum.

    Device Description

    The SeraQuest® HSV Type 2 Specific IgG test is a solid-phase enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) , which is performed in microwells, at room temperature, and in three thirty minute incubations The test detects IgG antibodies which are directed against HSV 2 type-specific antigens in human serum. The Calibrator in the SeraQuest® HSV Type 2 Specific IgG test set has been assigned Index values based on an in-house standard. Test results are reported as Index values.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the SeraQuest HSV Type 2 Specific IgG device, based on the provided document:


    Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

    Acceptance CriterionReported Device Performance (SeraQuest HSV Type 2 Specific IgG)
    PrecisionIntra-assay CV% for positive control: 9.9%
    Inter-assay CV% for positive control: 13.7%
    Inter-laboratory CV% for positive control: 15.4%
    Total CV% for positive control: 13.0%
    (Similar data provided for negative control and 6 samples)
    Specificity (Cross-reactivity)No false positives for HSV 1 IgG, CMV IgG, VZV EBNA/VCA/IgG, Measles IgG, Rubella IgG, Toxoplasma IgG, Syphilis IgG, Human Papilloma Virus, Neisseria gonorrhea.
    One false positive out of 8 for Chlamydia trachomitis.
    InterferenceNo significant interference observed with elevated levels of hemoglobin, glucose, cholesterol, globulin, unconjugated bilirubin, conjugated bilirubin, human albumin, and ascorbic acid.
    Relative Sensitivity & Specificity (Sexually Active Adults vs. Immunoblot)Sensitivity: 91.8% (95% CI: 82.2 to 96.5)
    Specificity: 94.2% (95% CI: 87.9 to 97.3)
    Relative Sensitivity & Specificity (Expectant Mothers vs. Immunoblot)Sensitivity: 98.9% (95% CI: 93.8 to 99.8)
    Specificity: 99.4% (95% CI: 96.4 to 99.9)
    Agreement with CDC PanelTotal Agreement: 100% (30/30 positive, 70/70 negative)

    Study Details

    1. Sample Size used for the test set and data provenance:

      • Precision Testing: 6 serum specimens (2 negative, 4 positive) and the SeraQuest Positive and Negative Controls. Each sample/control was assayed in triplicate, on three separate occasions, at three different laboratories (Quest International and two external independent laboratories). This results in a total of 27 data points per sample/control (3 triplicates * 3 occasions * 3 labs).
      • Specificity Testing:
        • HSV 1 IgG: 9 samples
        • CMV IgG: 11 samples
        • VZV EBNA IgG: 14 samples
        • VZV VCA IgG: 17 samples
        • VZV IgG: 21 samples
        • Measles IgG: 19 samples
        • Rubella IgG: 18 samples
        • Toxoplasma IgG: 6 samples
        • Syphilis IgG: 4 samples
        • Human Papilloma Virus: 7 samples
        • Chlamydia trachomitis: 8 samples
        • Neisseria gonorrhea: 7 samples
        • Provenance: Samples positive for various related pathogens/antibodies but negative for Type 2 HSV by another legally marketed device. Human Papilloma Virus, Chlamydia trachomitis, and Neisseria gonorrhea samples were from individual patients with confirmed sexually transmitted infections.
      • Interference Testing: Samples that were negative, weakly positive, and moderately positive for antibodies to Type 2 HSV were tested with and without the addition of elevated levels of specific interfering substances. (No specific number of samples provided for this test).
      • Comparison with Predicate Device:
        • Sexually Active Adults: 164 serum samples. Provenance: Prospectively collected, masked, archived, and tested at Quest International, Inc. from a clinical laboratory in the Southeastern United States.
        • Expectant Mothers: 242 serum samples. Provenance: Prospectively collected, masked, archived, and tested at Quest International, Inc. from clinical laboratories in the Northeastern and Southeastern United States. 82% from first trimester, 8% second, 10% third.
      • CDC Panel: 100 sera (30 HSV-2 IgG positive and 70 HSV-2 IgG negative samples). Provenance: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) serum panel.
    2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not explicitly stated for most studies.

      • For the cross-reactivity study, the samples were determined positive for various related pathogens "by other legally marketed devices" and confirmed negative for Type 2 HSV by a legally marketed device. This implies a standard diagnostic process, but no specific human experts or qualifications are mentioned for this initial determination.
      • For the comparative studies with the predicate device (Immunoblot), the ground truth was established by the predicate device itself. While the predicate device is a "legally marketed" test, it doesn't specify human expert interpretation or qualifications.
      • For the CDC Panel, the ground truth is "CDC consensus results" and the panel samples are described as "well characterized," implying established expert consensus or reference methods. No specific number of experts or their qualifications are detailed.
    3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not explicitly stated. The ground truth seems to be established by reference methods or legally marketed devices rather than direct human adjudication of results in most cases. For the CDC panel, it's "CDC consensus results," which implies an agreed-upon truth, but the adjudication method isn't described.

    4. 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 involving human readers or AI assistance was conducted or reported for this device. This is an IVD (In Vitro Diagnostic) assay, not an imaging AI device.
    5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

      • Yes, the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, precision, etc.) of the SeraQuest HSV Type 2 Specific IgG assay were evaluated as a standalone device. Its results are compared to a predicate device (Immunoblot) or a "well characterized serum panel" (CDC panel). There is no "human-in-the-loop" component described for this specific device in the context of its performance evaluation.
    6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

      • Precision: Internal controls and reference samples.
      • Specificity: Samples characterized by other legally marketed devices (positive for related pathogens, negative for HSV-2) and confirmed sexually transmitted infections.
      • Interference: Artificially spiked samples.
      • Comparison Studies: A "commercial HSV 2 Immunoblot test" (predicate device) was used as the reference standard for both sexually active adults and expectant mothers. This is a type of reference test ground truth.
      • CDC Panel: "CDC consensus results" from a "well characterized serum panel." This implies expert consensus or a gold standard determination for each sample in the panel.
    7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable and not mentioned. This document describes the performance evaluation of a medical device (an ELISA assay), not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set."

    8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1