Search Results

The VFE assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay for quantifying the concentration of von Willebrand Factor Antigen in human plasma to aid in differentiating patients with von Willebrand disease from those with Classical Hemophilia A.

VFE is an enzyme immunoassay, in microplate format, intended for the in vitro quantification of von Willebrand Factor antigen in serum or plasma as an aid to differentiate patients with von Willebrand disease from those with classical Hemophilia A. This assay represents an updated technical format, with performance improvements, when compared to the predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the acceptance criteria and study information:

Device: VFE (von Willebrand Factor Antigen Assay)

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" but rather presents a comparison to a predicate device (SPECTRO vWF) to demonstrate "substantial equivalence." The performance parameters of the VFE are compared to those of the predicate. We can infer that the VFE's performance should be comparable to or better than the predicate's for "substantial equivalence."

Note on Sensitivity: The VFE's reported sensitivity (0.78% N) is higher than SPECTRO vWF's (0.23% N). In this context, a higher percentage might indicate a detection limit, where a lower percentage is generally better for sensitivity in an assay (meaning it can detect lower concentrations). However, without further context on the specific units and definition of "% N," it's difficult to definitively say if VFE is "better" or if it represents a different measure. The conclusion statement indicates "similar characteristics," suggesting this difference was not considered a deal-breaker for substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size for Accuracy (compared to predicate): 118 samples (n = 118)
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The comparison is made to a predicate test, "SPECTRO vWF," which is also from Ramco Laboratories, Inc. No information regarding the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective is provided.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The accuracy of the VFE is compared to results from the predicate device, and the predicate's accuracy was "original comparison versus Laurell Rocket electrophoresis results." There is no mention of experts establishing a ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This information is not provided. The comparison is statistical (R value) against a predicate device's results.

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. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) enzyme immunoassay, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device. Therefore, an MRMC study with human readers and AI assistance is not applicable.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

• Yes, implicitly. The performance data presented (sensitivity, reproducibility, accuracy) represents the standalone performance of the VFE assay itself, without human interpretation in the sense of a "human-in-the-loop" for image or complex data analysis. The assay produces a quantitative result.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the VFE's accuracy, the ground truth was the results obtained from the predicate device (SPECTRO vWF).
• For the predicate device's original accuracy, the ground truth was derived from Laurell Rocket electrophoresis results.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• This information is not applicable/not provided. The VFE is an enzyme immunoassay, not a machine learning model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "training" of an assay involves optimization during development, but specific sample sizes for such an activity are not documented in the same way as for AI models.

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

• Not applicable/not provided. As mentioned above, this is an immunoassay, not an AI model.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TFR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay for quantifying the concentration of transferrin receptor in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia, particularly in the presence of other disease states.

The TFR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay based upon the double antibody sandwich method. Plasma or serum samples are diluted in buffer and pipetted into microwells pre-coated with polyclonal antibody to transferrin receptor. Horseradish peroxidase conjugated antibody specific for serum transferrin receptor (STR) is added to the wells and incubated. During this incubation, the STR binds to the polyclonal antibodies adsorbed to the wells and the HRP-conjugated second antibodies bind to the captured STR. Any unbound STR and excess HRP-conjugate are washed from the wells. Enzyme substrate is added to the wells and allowed to incubate, a stop solution is then added to stop the reaction and the intensity of the yellow product is measured in a microplate reader. The optical density of the resulting solution is directly proportional to the concentration of the STR in the standard samples. A standard curve is generated from the STR standards provided in the assay and the concentration of STR in the unknown sample is determined by comparing the unknown's optical density reading with the standard curve graph.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the TFR assay, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Quantikine IVD sTfR Immunoassay or QSI). The study primarily demonstrates agreement between the TFR assay and the predicate device, as well as agreement with clinical definitions of anemia.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study aspects based on the given information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in numerical thresholds, but rather implied by the comparison to the predicate device and clinical definitions. The 'agreement' percentages serve as the reported device performance against these implied criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device