Search Results

QUALITROL TUMOR MARKER CONTROL, Levels 1 and 2, is a lyophilized human serum based assayed quality control material intended to monitor the naman of clinical immunological test procedures that analyze for tumor associated antigens.

QUALITROL TUMOR MARKER CONTROL, Levels 1 and 2, is a lyophilized human serum based assayed quality control material.

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the Qualitrol Tumor Marker Control, Levels 1 and 2. It states that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. This type of regulatory document does not typically contain detailed information about the acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study results of the kind requested in the prompt.

Therefore, I cannot extract the following information from the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document only states that the device is "substantially equivalent" and provides its indications for use. It does not detail specific performance metrics or acceptance thresholds.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not available in this document.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not available in this document.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not available in this document.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: This is a control material, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, so an MRMC study is not relevant and not discussed.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable as it's a control material.
7. The type of ground truth used: Not available in this document.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable/available for this type of device and regulatory submission.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable/available for this type of device and regulatory submission.

Summary based on the provided document:

The document concerns the Qualitrol Tumor Marker Control, Levels 1 and 2, described as a "lyophilized human serum based assayed quality control material intended to monitor the performance of clinical immunological test procedures that analyze for tumor associated antigens."

The FDA's decision is that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This implies that the device has met the regulatory requirements by demonstrating it performs as safely and effectively as a predicate device, but the specific performance demonstration data is not included in this letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

QUALITROL IMMUNOASSAY PLUS CONTROL, Levels 1, 2 and 3, is a lyophilized QUAEFFROE immONessayed quality control material intended to monitor the naman ocrain bacoa a immunoassay test procedures that analyze performanoo of climos. Intreaputic drugs as listed in this package insert.

QUALITROL IMMUNOASSAY PLUS CONTROL, Levels 1, 2 and 3, is a lyophilized QUAEFFROE immONessayed quality control material

This looks like a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device called "QUALITROL IMMUNOASSAY PLUS CONTROL, Levels 1, 2 and 3." This letter grants market clearance based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than describing a study used for de novo approval or premarket approval (PMA) which would typically contain detailed acceptance criteria and study results.

Therefore, the provided document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria. The letter confirms substantial equivalence but does not provide performance data or acceptance criteria for a new device.

Here's why the requested information cannot be extracted from this document:

• Type of Device: This is a quality control material for immunoassays, not a diagnostic or therapeutic device whose performance would be described in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, etc., in the same way.
• Regulatory Pathway: A 510(k) notification demonstrates substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. It typically relies on showing that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate, often through comparisons of design, materials, and intended use, and sometimes through performance testing if necessary to demonstrate equivalence. It does not usually involve extensive clinical trials with pre-defined acceptance criteria for novel performance claims in the way a PMA or de novo submission would.
• Content of the Letter: The letter explicitly states, "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) notification of intent to market the device referenced above and we have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices." It doesn't present a study or performance results.

To answer your questions, one would need to access the full 510(k) submission (K992939) which might contain summary performance data used to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but that information is not in this FDA clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

QUALITROL CARDIAC MARKER CONTROL, Levels 1, 2 and 3, is a liquid human serum based assayed quality control material intended to monitor the performance of clinical test procedures that analyze for indicators of possible cardiac abnormalities.

liquid human serum based assayed quality control material

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a medical device called "QUALITROL Cardiac Marker Control, Level 1, 2 and 3". This letter indicates that the device has been found substantially equivalent to a predicate device and can be marketed.

However, this document does not contain the detailed information necessary to describe acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria. The 510(k) clearance process focuses on substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring a detailed clinical study demonstrating device performance against specific acceptance criteria.

The letter mentions the "Indications for Use Statement," which describes what the device is intended to do: "QUALITROL CARDIAC MARKER CONTROL, Levels 1, 2 and 3, is a liquid human serum based assayed quality control material intended to monitor the performance of clinical test procedures that analyze for indicators of possible cardiac abnormalities." This statement defines the purpose of the device, but not its performance acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based solely on the content of this document. A 510(k) submission typically includes data to support substantial equivalence (e.g., analytical performance studies for in-vitro diagnostic devices), but those specific details are not present in this regulatory clearance letter.

To fully answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance, I would need access to the actual 510(k) submission data (e.g., the analytical studies like precision, accuracy, stability, etc., that would have been submitted to demonstrate the quality control material itself performs as expected).

Ask a specific question about this device

Qualitrol Immunology Control, Level 1, 2 and 3, is a lyophilized human serum based assayed quality control material intended to monitor the performance of clinical immunological test procedures that analyze immunoglobulins and other serum proteins.

Qualitrol Immunology Control, is designed to monitor the performance of test procedures that analyze immunoqlobulin and other proteins in serum. Human origin components are added to a human serum based matrix. The product contains 0.1% sodium azide. Qualitrol Immunology Control will be offered in three levels of 5.0 mL fill vials.

This submission describes a quality control material rather than a diagnostic device, therefore, the typical acceptance criteria and study designs are not directly applicable in the same way they would be for an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The "performance" being evaluated is its suitability as a control material, primarily by comparing its characteristics to a legally marketed predicate device.

Here's how the provided information relates to your request, with explanations for where certain criteria are not applicable:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

For this type of device, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the characteristics of the predicate device and the manufacturer's claim of "substantial equivalence." The reported "device performance" is a comparison of these characteristics.

Explanation of "Acceptance": The FDA's letter (K992770) explicitly states: "We have determined the device is substantially equivalent... to legally marketed predicate devices." This substantial equivalence determination serves as the "acceptance" for marketing the product. The minor differences (e.g., number of analytes, lyophilized vs. liquid form) were deemed not to raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in the traditional sense of a diagnostic test set. This is a quality control material, and the "test" involved comparing its formulation and intended use characteristics against a predicate device. Performance would typically be assessed during internal validation of its stability, analyte levels, and consistency, but those details are not provided in this 510(k) summary.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The comparison is against a commercially available predicate device (LIQUICHEK IMMUNOLOGY CONTROL, BIO-RAD Laboratories K-945651). The information provided is a comparative analysis of product characteristics.

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

• Not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of a quality control material refers to the established target values for the analytes within the control. This is typically determined through rigorous analytical methods and inter-laboratory studies conducted by the manufacturer, rather than by human experts establishing diagnostic "ground truth" as in an imaging study. The provided document focuses on the equivalence of the control's characteristics to another control, not its accuracy in mimicking a clinical condition.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. There was no "test set" requiring adjudication in the diagnostic sense. The comparison was a direct assessment of physical and functional characteristics against a predicate 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 device is an immunology control, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, no MRMC study, human reader improvement, or AI component is relevant.

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

• Not applicable. This device is an immunology control, not an algorithm.

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

• For this device, "ground truth" (if we stretch the definition) would refer to the assigned values of the analytes within the control material, and the physical/chemical properties that define it as a suitable control. These are established through manufacturing processes, analytical testing, and stability studies, not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data related to patient diagnosis. The document primarily uses the characteristics of the predicate device as a benchmark.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a quality control material, not a machine learning model. There is no concept of a "training set" for its development or validation as described in this document.

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

• Not applicable. As above, there is no training set for this product.

Ask a specific question about this device

Urine Drug Screening Control is a liquid human urine based assayed quality control material intended to monitor the performance of screening, semiquantitative and confirmatory drug-of-abuse testing procedures.

Urine Drug Screening Control is designed to monitor the performance of screening, semi-quantitative and confirmatory drugs-of-abuse testing procedures. Purified drugs or drug metabolites added to a human urine based matrix to provide a stable liquid control, which closely mimics drug containing human urine. The product contains

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a quality control material, not a diagnostic device with performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity. Therefore, the typical acceptance criteria and study designs for diagnostic algorithms (like standalone performance, MRMC studies, or multi-reader paradigms) are not applicable here.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on technological characteristics and intended use. The "acceptance criteria" in this context are alignment with the predicate device, and the "study" is a comparative analysis of these characteristics.

Here's the breakdown of the information as it relates to the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that this is a quality control material and the evaluation is for substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" are effectively the characteristics of the predicate device, and the "reported device performance" is how the new device matches those characteristics.

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

This information is not applicable to this type of submission. The device is a quality control material, not a diagnostic test that processes patient data. The "test set" in this context refers to the characteristics of the device itself and its comparison to the predicate. No patient data or clinical sample sizes are mentioned.

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

This information is not applicable. Ground truth, in the context of diagnostic performance, is not established for quality control materials in this manner. The "ground truth" for a quality control material is its chemical composition and performance within a laboratory assay, which is typically validated through internal and external methods by the manufacturer and reference laboratories.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for resolving disagreements among human readers in diagnostic studies. This is not a human-interpreted diagnostic device.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study evaluates the performance of human readers, with and without AI assistance, on a set of cases. This device is a quality control material used to monitor laboratory assays, not a device interpreted by human readers.

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

No, a standalone performance study as understood for AI algorithms was not done. The concept of "standalone performance" doesn't directly apply to a quality control material in the same way it would to an AI diagnostic algorithm. The device's performance is assessed by its chemical stability and its ability to consistently produce expected results when used in drug screening assays, which is implied by the stability data and intended use, rather than an "algorithm only" evaluation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device is its chemical formulation and stability characteristics, as well as its performance against predefined target values when used in laboratoryassays. This is inferred from "Purified drugs or drug metabolites added to a human urine based matrix" and the "assayed quality control material intended to monitor and evaluate the precision and the accuracy of laboratory testing procedures." This would typically be established through analytical testing and reference methods during the manufacturing process to ensure the control material contains the specified analytes at predefined concentrations.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. Quality control materials do not have "training sets" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms. Their development relies on chemical formulation, stability studies, and manufacturing controls.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device