Search Results

The Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of thyroglobulin in human serum and plasma (EDTA and lithium heparin) using the Atellica IM Analyzer.

Thyroglobulin measurements are used as an aid in monitoring differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have undergone thyroidectomy with or without radioiodine ablation.

The Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay includes:

• Tg ReadyPack primary reagent pack:
  • Lite Reagent: mouse monoclonal anti-human Tg antibody labeled with acridinium ester (~1.13 μg/mL); bovine serum albumin (BSA); mouse IgG; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (7.5 mL/reagent pack).
  • Solid Phase: streptavidin-coated paramagnetic microparticles preformed with biotinylated mouse monoclonal antihuman Tg antibody (~267 μg/mL); BSA; mouse IgG; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (15.0 mL/reagent pack).
• Ancillary Well Reagent: BSA; bovine gamma globulin; buffer; preservatives (6.0 mL/reagent pack).
• Tg CAL: After reconstitution, human thyroglobulin; BSA; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (2.0 mL/vial).

The following devices are sold separately:

• Atellica IM Tg MCM:
  • MCM 1: After reconstitution, bovine serum albumin (BSA); buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (1.0 mL/vial).
  • MCM 2–5: After reconstitution, various levels of human thyroglobulin; BSA; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (1.0 mL/vial).

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary for the Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay:

Device: Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) Assay
Purpose: Quantitative measurement of thyroglobulin in human serum and plasma as an aid in monitoring differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have undergone thyroidectomy with or without radioiodine ablation.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document describes various performance characteristics, which serve as acceptance criteria for the device. The reported performance is directly from the summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TSHL method is an in vitro diagnostic test for the quantitative measurement of Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH, thyrotropin) in human serum and plasma on the Dimension® EXL™ integrated chemistry system with LOCI® Module. Measurements of TSH are used in the diagnosis and monitoring of thyroid disease.

The FT4L method is an in vitro diagnostic test for the quantitative measurement of Free Thyroxine in human serum and plasma on the Dimension® EXL™ integrated chemistry system with LOCI® Module. Measurements of free thyroxine are used in the diagnosis and monitoring of thyroid disease.

The Dimension® LOCI® Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Flex® reagent cartridge (TSHL) and Dimension® LOCI® Free Thyroxine Flex® reagent cartridge (FT4L) assays were cleared under K081074 and K073604, respectively. The components of the cleared assays were modified to reduce biotin interference.

The modified Assays are comprised of the following components:

Dimension® LOCI® Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Flex® reagent cartridge (TSHL): prepackaged liquid reagents in a plastic eight-well cartridge. Wells 1-2 contain Biotinylated TSH antibody (7.5 µg/mL mouse monoclonal), wells 3-4 contain TSH antibody coated Chemibeads (200 µg/mL mouse monoclonal), and wells 5-6 contain Streptavidin Sensibeads (1400 µg/mL recombinant E. coli). Wells 1-6 contain buffers, stabilizers and preservatives. Wells 7-8 are empty.

Dimension® LOCI® Free Thyroxine Flex® reagent cartridge (FT4L): prepackaged liquid reagents in a plastic eight-well cartridge. Wells 1-2 contain Streptavidin Sensibeads (225 µg/mL recombinant E. coli), wells 3-4 contain T3 Chemibeads (200 µg/mL), and wells 5-6 contain FT4 Biotinylated antibody (50 ng/mL mouse monoclonal). Wells 1-6 contain buffers, stabilizers and preservatives. Wells 7-8 are empty.

Test Principle: Both devices use a homogeneous chemiluminescent immunoassay based on LOCI® technology.
For TSHL, it's a sandwich immunoassay where sample is incubated with biotinylated antibody and Chemibeads to form bead-TSH-biotinylated antibody sandwiches. Sensibeads are added and bind to the biotin to form bead-pair immunocomplexes. Illumination at 680 nm generates singlet oxygen from Sensibeads which diffuses into Chemibeads, triggering a chemiluminescent reaction. The resulting signal is measured at 612 nm and is a direct function of TSH concentration.
For FT4L, it's a sequential immunoassay where sample is incubated with biotinylated antibody. T3 Chemibeads are added and form bead/biotinylated antibody immunocomplexes with the non-saturated fraction of the biotinylated antibody. Sensibeads are then added and bind to the biotin to form bead pair immunocomplexes. Illumination at 680 nm generates singlet oxygen from Sensibeads which diffuses into the Chemibeads, triggering a chemiluminescent reaction. The resulting signal is measured at 612 nm and is an inverse function of FT4 concentration.

The document provided is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for two in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices: Dimension® LOCI® Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Flex® reagent cartridge (TSHL) and Dimension® LOCI® Free Thyroxine Flex® reagent cartridge (FT4L). It describes the devices, their intended use, and the performance characteristics tested to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices.

However, it's crucial to understand that this document describes a reagent cartridge, which is a laboratory assay, not an AI/ML-driven device or an imaging device. Therefore, many of the requested criteria (e.g., sample size for training/test sets for AI, data provenance like country of origin for AI, ground truth establishment by experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance) are not applicable to this type of device. The document details the performance of the assay itself in measuring biomarker concentrations, not an AI's ability to interpret images or assist human readers.

I will interpret the request based on the information provided for this specific IVD device, noting where certain requested details are not relevant to the nature of the device.

Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove Device Meets Criteria (for an IVD Reagent Cartridge)

The device in question, a reagent cartridge for quantitative measurement of TSH and FT4, is a laboratory assay, not an AI/ML or imaging interpretation device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" are focused on analytical performance characteristics (accuracy, precision, linearity, interference, detection limits, etc.) compared to a predicate device, rather than diagnostic accuracy metrics of an AI.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For an IVD reagent cartridge, "acceptance criteria" are typically defined by ranges, limits, or statistical agreementsdemonstrating analytical performance comparable or superior to the predicate device and meeting relevant clinical or analytical standards (e.g., CLSI guidelines). The reported performance demonstrates that the modified devices meet these standards.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance for the Test Set

The concept of a "test set" in the context of an IVD reagent cartridge refers to the set of samples used for various analytical performance studies. These are not typically split into "training" and "test" sets as in AI/ML.

• Method Comparison:
  • TSHL: 145 patient samples (serum)
  • FT4L: 146 patient samples (serum)
• Precision (Repeatability): 5 serum samples (TSHL), 3 serum samples (FT4L)
• Precision (Reproducibility): 5 serum samples (TSHL), 3 serum samples (FT4L)
• Linearity: Low and high human serum pools used to create dilution series (TSHL: 12 levels, FT4L: 10 levels)
• Interference (Biotin and HIL): Samples spiked with interferents, specific TSH/FT4 levels tested.
• Dilution Recovery: 7 samples (TSHL)
• Reference Range Verification: "Apparently healthy samples" (specific N not provided, but typically a statistically significant number for verification per CLSI EP28-A3C).
• Matrix Comparison: Samples of various tube types (Serum, lithium heparin, sodium heparin, K2-EDTA plasma)

Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the patient samples. The studies are explicitly described as analytical performance studies rather than clinical outcome studies, and they are retrospective (samples tested in the lab, not followed prospectively).

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

This is not applicable as the device is a quantitative IVD assay (reagent cartridge), not an AI/ML device requiring expert interpretation of complex clinical data or images. The "ground truth" for this device is the actual concentration of TSH or FT4 in the sample, typically established either by:

• Reference methods (e.g., mass spectrometry, although not explicitly stated as the ground truth method here).
• The predicate device itself (as used in method comparison studies, where the predicate is the "comparison assay").
• Spiking known concentrations into matrices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable for a quantitative IVD reagent. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in scenarios where human experts interpret data (like medical images), and their disagreements need to be resolved to establish a definitive ground truth for AI model evaluation.

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

This is not applicable. An MRMC study is designed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of human readers, often with and without AI assistance, on a set of cases. This device is a reagent cartridge that provides a quantitative measurement, not an AI that assists human interpretation.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop)

This is not applicable. This device is a reagent cartridge that runs on an automated system, providing a quantitative result. It's inherently "standalone" in providing the measurement, but it's not an "algorithm only" in the sense of an AI interpreting complex data. The performance metrics listed (precision, accuracy relative to predicate, linearity, etc.) are its "standalone" performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this type of quantitative diagnostic test is based on:

• Comparison to a legally marketed predicate device: The current, FDA-cleared versions of the TSHL and FT4L assays (K081074 and K073604) acted as the "gold standard" or comparison method for the method comparison studies.
• Known concentrations: For linearity, recovery, and interference studies, samples were prepared with known concentrations or spiked with known amounts of analytes or interferents.
• Analytically verified samples: Samples used for precision studies have mean values derived from repeated measurements.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable as the device is a non-AI/ML IVD reagent cartridge. There is no concept of a "training set" for this type of product. The development and optimization of the reagent formulation are internal processes, but they don't involve "training" a model on a dataset in the AI sense.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Atellica® CH Creatinine_3 (Crea3) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of creatinine in human serum, plasma (lithium heparin, dipotassium EDTA, and sodium heparin), and urine using the Atellica® CH Analyzer. Such measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of renal diseases, and in monitoring renal dialysis.

The Atellica CH Crea3 assay is based on the reaction of picrate with creatinine in an alkaline medium to produce a red chromophore creatinine picrate complex. The rate of complex formation is measured at 505/571 nm and is proportional to the creatinine concentration. The Atellica CH Crea3 assay is a modification of the Jaffe method, using rate blanking and intercept correction. Rate blanking is used to minimize bilirubin interference. Also, because non-specific serum/plasma protein interactions with this reagent have been found to produce a positive bias of approximately 0.3 mg/dL (26.5 µmol/L), serum/plasma measurements are automatically corrected by subtracting 0.3 mg/dL (26.5 µmol/L) from each result.

The provided text describes the performance characteristics and studies for the Atellica® CH Creatinine_3 (Crea3) assay, a new in vitro diagnostic device for quantitative determination of creatinine. It compares this new device to a predicate device, the Atellica® CH Creatinine_2 (Crea_2) assay.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Important Note: The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test, which primarily relies on analytical performance characteristics rather than clinical outcome studies or multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies typically seen with imaging AI devices. Therefore, some of your requested information (like number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, and training set details for an AI model) are not directly applicable or provided in this type of submission.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device are established through various analytical performance studies, primarily comparing it to a legally marketed predicate device (Atellica® CH Creatinine_2). The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the successful demonstration of equivalence or meeting pre-defined performance goals for each characteristic.

Here's a table summarizing the acceptance criteria (inferred from the "designed to have" or "determined in accordance with" statements and the reported results meeting these) and the reported device performance:

• Serum 1 (0.38 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.006, CV 1.6%; Within-Lab SD 0.012, CV 3.2%
• Serum 2 (0.73 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.023, CV 3.2%; Within-Lab SD 0.029, CV 4.0%
• Serum 3 (0.73 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.006, CV 0.8%; Within-Lab SD 0.019, CV 2.6%
• Serum 4 (1.18 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.007, CV 0.6%; Within-Lab SD 0.019, CV 1.6%
• Serum QC 1 (1.85 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.007, CV 0.4%; Within-Lab SD 0.024, CV 1.3%
• Serum QC 2 (6.21 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.011, CV 0.2%; Within-Lab SD 0.067, CV 1.1%
• Serum 5 (17.39 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.035, CV 0.2%; Within-Lab SD 0.189, CV 1.1%
• Serum 6 (28.54 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.056, CV 0.2%; Within-Lab SD 0.317, CV 1.1%
  Urine Samples (n=80 each):
• Urine 1 (56.74 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.102, CV 0.2%; Within-Lab SD 0.746, CV 1.3%
• Urine 2 (135.80 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.206, CV 0.2%; Within-Lab SD 1.601, CV 1.2%
• Urine QC 1 (195.79 mg/dL): Repeatability SD 0.253, CV 0.1%; Within-Lab SD 2.376, CV 1.2%
  (All results demonstrate low CVs, indicating good precision). |
  | Reproducibility | Determined in accordance with CLSI Document EP05-A3 (implies meeting specific statistical targets for variability components across different days, lots, and instruments). | Serum Samples (n=225 each): Overall CV (%) for reproducibility ranges from 1.0% to 5.0%.
  Urine Samples (n=225 each): Overall CV (%) for reproducibility ranges from 1.4% to 1.6%.
  (All results demonstrate good reproducibility across conditions). |
  | Assay Comparison | Serum: Correlation coefficient $\ge$ 0.950 and slope of 1.00 ± 0.05, compared to predicate (Atellica CH Creatinine 2), using Weighted Deming regression.
  Urine: Correlation coefficient $\ge$ 0.950 and slope of 0.000 ± 3.00, compared to predicate (Atellica CH Creatinine 2), using Weighted Deming regression. | Serum (n=151): Regression equation y = 1.00x - 0.04 mg/dL, correlation coefficient (r) = 1.000. Sample range 0.44 to 28.64 mg/dL.
  Urine (n=113): Regression equation y = 1.00x + 0.14 mg/dL, correlation coefficient (r) = 1.000. Sample range 12.60 to 237.06 mg/dL.
  (Both serum and urine results meet the acceptance criteria for correlation and slope). |
  | Specimen Equivalence | Determined using Weighted Deming regression (implicitly, the regression line should demonstrate equivalence, i.e., close to y=x, with high correlation coefficient). | Sodium Heparin (n=50): y = 1.00x + 0.00 mg/dL, r=0.999.
  Lithium Heparin (n=50): y = 0.99x + 0.06 mg/dL, r=0.999.
  Dipotassium EDTA (n=50): y = 0.98x + 0.04 mg/dL, r=0.998.
  (All demonstrate strong equivalence to serum reference). |
  | Interferences (HIL) | $\le$ 10% interference from hemoglobin, bilirubin, and lipemia. Bias > 10% or 0.15 mg/dL (whichever is greater for serum/plasma) is considered interference. | Reported biases for Hemoglobin (1000 mg/dL), Conjugated Bilirubin (40-45 mg/dL), Unconjugated Bilirubin (45-60 mg/dL), and Lipemia (2250-3000 mg/dL) are all within the ±10% or ±0.15 mg/dL threshold for the tested analyte concentrations, demonstrating acceptable interference profiles. |
  | Interfering Substances | Bias $\le$ 10% or ±0.15 mg/dL for Serum/plasma samples. Bias $\le$ 10% for Urine samples (for listed substances). | Most tested substances (e.g., Acetaminophen, Ascorbic Acid, etc.) show negligible bias, meeting the criteria.

Substances showing bias beyond acceptance criteria for Serum:

• Cefoxitin: Significant interference (e.g., 243.6% and 947.9% bias at high concentrations).
• Cephalothin: Shows significant bias (e.g., 44.0% bias at 180 mg/dL).
• Glucose: Shows bias beyond 10% at higher concentrations (e.g., 11.5% at 500 mg/dL and 22.5% at 1000 mg/dL).
• Total Protein: Shows bias beyond 0.15 mg/dL at 15 g/dL (0.45 mg/dL).
• Acetohexamide: Shows bias beyond 10% at 2.0 mg/dL (10.4%).
• Hydroxocobalamin (Cyanokit): Shows significant bias (e.g., 14.5% and 49.3% at higher concentrations).

Substances showing bias beyond acceptance criteria for Urine:

• Cefoxitin: Shows bias beyond 10% at higher concentrations (e.g., 11.3% and 15.4%).
  (The document explicitly lists these substances under "Interference beyond ±10% for Serum" and "Interference beyond ±10% for Urine," indicating that they failed the non-interference criteria at the tested concentrations. This is typical for IVD submissions, where known interferences are identified for labeling purposes). |
  | Standardization | The assay shall be traceable to the reference material SRM967, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). | Statement confirms the assay is traceable to NIST SRM967. |

Study Details:

1. Sample Size and Data Provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Sizes:
     • Detection Capability: Not explicitly stated as "sample size" but data points obtained according to CLSI EP17-A2.
     • Precision: 80 data points per serum/urine sample type (duplicate runs for 20 days, 2 runs/day).
     • Reproducibility: 225 data points per serum/urine sample type (n=5 in 1 run for 5 days using 3 instruments and 3 reagent lots).
     • Assay Comparison: 151 serum samples and 113 urine samples.
     • Specimen Equivalence: 50 samples for each plasma type (Sodium Heparin, Lithium Heparin, Dipotassium EDTA) compared to serum.
     • Interference (HIL & Non-Interfering Substances): Not explicitly stated as a total sample size, but experiments are designed to test specific analyte concentrations with and without interferents, following CLSI EP07-ED3.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin. Given the manufacturer (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. in Tarrytown, New York, USA) and FDA submission, it's highly probable the studies were conducted in the US or in compliance with US regulatory standards. The studies described are retrospective in the sense that they use pre-collected or prepared samples to assess the analytical performance of the device under controlled conditions, not prospective in tracking patient outcomes in a clinical trial.

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

   • For an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device measuring a quantitative analyte like creatinine, "ground truth" is typically established by reference methods or established laboratory standards and calibrators, not by human expert consensus or labeling of medical images.
   • The "ground truth" for creatinine concentration in this context is based on traceable reference materials (NIST SRM 967) and established laboratory measurement principles, and the performance is compared against a legally marketed predicate device.
   • Therefore, this question (relevant for AI/imaging devices) does not directly apply to this type of IVD submission.

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trials or image labeling pipelines where there's human interpretation involved and a need to resolve disagreements among multiple readers; this is an analytical performance study of an IVD assay.

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:

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI/imaging device. It's an in vitro diagnostic assay.

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

   • This is an automated IVD assay performed on the Atellica® CH Analyzer. Its intended use is quantitative determination of creatinine. Therefore, the performance described (precision, accuracy, interference, etc.) is its standalone performance without a human in the loop for the analytical measurement itself, though a human still interacts with the instrument and interprets the results in a clinical context.

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

   • The primary "ground truth" for the Atellica® CH Creatinine_3 assay's performance is traceability to NIST SRM 967 (a certified reference material for creatinine) and comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (Atellica® CH Creatinine_2) using method comparison validated against CLSI guidelines. This is a form of analytical reference standard and comparative performance to an established method.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This device is an analytical chemistry assay, not a machine learning/AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "development" or "optimization" of the assay would involve various experimental data, but it's not codified as a "training set" for an algorithm.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the AI/ML context for this type of device. The assay development would rely on scientific principles of analytical chemistry, reagent formulation, and instrument calibration against known standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

INNOVANCE Anti-Xa assay in combination with INNOVANCE Heparin Calibrator is an In-vitro diagnostic automated chromogenic assay for the quantitative determination of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) activity in human plasma collected from venous blood samples in 3.2 % sodium citrated tubes in the clinical laboratory. The quantitative determination of UFH and LMWH can be performed on the BCS XP System, CS-2500 System, CS-5100 System and the CA-660 System. For use with plasma from patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy with either UFH or LMWH.

INNOVANCE Anti-Xa assay in combination with INNOVANCE Apixaban Standard provides quantitative determination of the concentration of apixaban in human plasma collected from venous blood samples in 3.2 % sodium citrated tubes in the clinical laboratory. The quantitative determination of apixaban can be performed on CS-2500 System. For use with plasma from patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy with apixaban in situations where quantification of apixaban levels may be indicated:

· Patient with bleeding,

· Patient with risk for bleeding (e.g. during perioperative management),

· Patient with conditions affecting pharmacokinetics (e.g. deteriorating renal function, extremes of body weight, treatment with other drugs known to affect pharmacokinetics of apixaban).

The performance of this device has not been established in neonate and pediatric patient populations.

INNOVANCE Anti-Xa assay is a one stage chromogenic assay. The reagent kit consists of two components. One component (Reagent) contains Xa. the other (Substrate) a chromogenic substrate specific for Xa. Upon mixing of INNOVANCE Anti-Xa Reagent and INNOVANCE Anti-Xa Substrate, Xa converts the chromogenic substrate into two products, one of them is paranitroaniline. The formation of paranitroaniline can be quantified by the coaqulation analyzer employing light absorption at a specific wavelength (405 nm).

In the presence of a heparin containing sample the formation of paranitroaniline will be reduced in a time dependent manner. This is due to inhibition of Xa by the heparin/AT complex is formed in the patient's plasma and competes with the substrate conversion by Xa. The concentration of the complex is not only dependent on the concentration of heparin but also on the availability of the patient's endogenous antithrombin. By comparison to a reference curve the heparin activity of the sample can be quantified.

To reduce the influence from heparin antagonists, such as platelet factor 4 (PF4), dextran sulfate is included in the reaction mixture.

In the presence of an apixaban containing sample factor Xa is inhibited directly by this inhibitor. Comparison to an inhibitor specific reference curve allows quantification of the inhibitor concentration in the sample.

The provided text describes the performance data for the INNOVANCE Anti-Xa assay, a device for quantitative determination of anticoagulants. As the request is about acceptance criteria and study proving it, and this document is an FDA 510(k) summary, specific acceptance criteria would be internal to the manufacturer's validation plan and not explicitly stated as "acceptance criteria" in this public summary. However, the performance data presented (Precision, Reproducibility, LoB, LoD, LoQ, Linearity, Measuring Interval, Interference, and Method Comparison) implicitly demonstrate that the device meets the necessary performance characteristics for its intended use, making it "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device.

Here's an attempt to extract and infer the information based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from Performance Data) and Reported Device Performance

Since explicit acceptance criteria are not stated as pass/fail thresholds in this summary, they are inferred based on the presented results which led to substantial equivalence. The predicate device's performance often sets the benchmark for substantial equivalence.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Precision: 240 measurements for each of the 6 samples (INNOVANCE Apixaban Control 1 & 2, and 4 plasma pools).
  • LoB, LoD, LoQ: Not explicitly stated as a single number, but calculation involves measurements of multiple samples (e.g., "samples with an assigned value of 0 ng/mL apixaban" for LoB; "samples with an assigned value of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 ng/mL apixaban" for LoD; "samples with an assigned value of 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 ng/mL apixaban" for LoQ).
  • Linearity & Measuring Interval: Not explicitly stated as a single number, but likely involves multiple spike levels and measurements.
  • Interference: Not explicitly stated, but involves testing various interfering substances.
  • Method Comparison: 301 fresh and frozen plasma samples (multicentric study across 3 sites).
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the data. It refers to "internally conducted studies" and a "multicentric study" for reproducibility and method comparison, implying clinical laboratories. Since the applicant is Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products GmbH, Marburg, Germany, it's highly probable that some or all studies were conducted in Germany or other European countries, though this is not explicitly stated. The studies are described as conforming to CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) guidelines, which are international standards. The samples for method comparison were "fresh and frozen plasma samples." It is a prospective study in terms of testing the device performance against established samples/methods.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth:

This device is an in-vitro diagnostic assay that measures the concentration of substances (heparin, apixaban) in blood plasma directly. Therefore, the "ground truth" is typically defined by:

• Reference Methods: For method comparison, it refers to the results obtained from the predicate device (HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa) on the ACL TOP system.
• Assigned Values: For calibrators and controls, the "assigned value" is based on the manufacturer's preparation and testing, often traceable to internal reference preparations or qualified methods like LC-MS/MS for substances like apixaban, as stated in the traceability sections for calibrators and controls.

There is no mention of human "experts" (e.g., radiologists, pathologists) establishing ground truth, as this is a quantitative laboratory assay, not an imaging device requiring expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable. This is a quantitative laboratory assay, not a device where interpretation or human reading requires adjudication. The ground truth for method comparison is the measurement from the predicate device (HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa).

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

Not applicable. This is an in-vitro diagnostic device for quantitative chemical analysis, not an imaging device or AI algorithm with human-in-the-loop performance component.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

This device is a standalone diagnostic assay (reagent kit used with specific automated analyzers). Its performance data, as detailed, represents its standalone performance. There is no separate "algorithm" in the sense of AI that needs to be evaluated independently of the assay system.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Reference Method Comparison: For method comparison, the ground truth was established by the predicate device (HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa), which is a legally marketed device, providing a comparative ground truth.
• Internal Reference/Assigned Values: For precision, LoB, LoD, LoQ, linearity, and interference studies, the ground truth for samples (e.g., controls, plasma pools, spiked samples) was established by their assigned values, internal reference preparations, or spiked concentrations. The traceability section explicitly mentions that for apixaban, calibration values are "traceable to apixaban supplied by the manufacturer and quantitated in plasmas assayed by Liquid Chromatography - tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)" for the predicate, and for the subject device, "calibrated against an internal reference preparation."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

This document describes the analytical validation of a diagnostic assay (a chemical reagent system) rather than an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" for an algorithm doesn't directly apply in the traditional sense. The development of such assays involves extensive R&D, formulation, and preliminary testing, but these are not referred to as "training sets" in the context of typical regulatory submissions for IVDs. The closest equivalent would be the R&D samples used during the development and optimization phase of the reagent and its performance on the instruments. No specific numbers are provided for this.

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

As above, the concept of a "training set" is not relevant here. For the analytical studies presented, "ground truth" (or reference values) for various samples (calibrators, controls, patient samples, spiked samples) were established through recognized methods:

• Predicate Device Measurements: For comparative studies, the measurements from the legally marketed predicate device served as a comparative reference.
• LC-MS/MS (Liquid Chromatography - tandem Mass Spectrometry): This highly accurate analytical technique is explicitly mentioned for establishing traceability and quantifying apixaban in calibrators for the predicate device, and the subject device uses an "internal reference preparation" which would likely also be validated against similar high-accuracy methods.
• Gravimetric/Volumetric Spiking: For linearity, LoD, and LoQ studies, samples are often prepared by precisely adding known concentrations of the analyte (apixaban) to a matrix, making the spiked concentration the ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Atellica® IM High-Sensitivity Troponin I (TnIH) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of cardiac troponin I in human serum or plasma (lithium heparin) using the Atellica® IM Analyzer. The assay can be used to aid in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

The Atellica IM TnIH assay can be used as an aid in prognosis for 30-, 182-, and 365-day all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). MACE consists of myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, cardiac death, or heart failure hospitalization.

The Atellica® IM TnIH assay is a 3-site sandwich immunoassay using direct chemiluminescent technology. The Solid Phase reagent consists of magnetic particles conjugated with streptavidin with 2 bound biotinylated capture monoclonal antibodies, each recognizing a unique cTnl epitope.

The Lite Reagent comprises a conjugate with an architecture consisting of a proprietary acridinium ester and a recombinant anti-human cTnl sheep Fab covalently attached to bovine serum albumin (BSA) for chemiluminescent detection.

A direct relationship exists between the amount of cTnl present in the patient sample and the amount of relative light units (RLUs) detected by the system.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Atellica® IM High-Sensitivity Troponin I (TnIH) assay, detailing its substantial equivalence to a predicate device and supporting the addition of a prognostic indication for use. However, it does not explicitly define acceptance criteria as a separate, quantitative table with pass/fail metrics. Instead, the "Performance Characteristics – Clinical Study" section presents the study objective and results that demonstrate the device's performance for the new prognostic indication, implicitly serving as the validation for meeting the FDA's requirements for substantial equivalence.

Based on the information provided, here's a breakdown of the requested elements:

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

The document does not provide a formal table of acceptance criteria with quantitative thresholds for "pass/fail". The study's objective was to demonstrate the ability of the device to predict future mortality or adverse cardiac events. The reported performance focuses on:

• Hazard Ratios (Unadjusted and Adjusted): Showing the increased risk of ACM/MACE for patients with cTnI levels >99th percentile compared to those ≤99th percentile.
• Post-test risk: The cumulative incidence of ACM/MACE for the two troponin level groups.
• Kaplan-Meier Curves: Visually representing the absolute risk of events over time for the two groups.

The implicit acceptance criteria for this prognostic indication would be that the device's measurements (specifically, cTnI levels > 99th percentile) demonstrate a statistically significant association with increased future risk of all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) across the specified follow-up periods (30, 90, 182, and 365 days) in the relevant patient populations.

Reported Device Performance (Excerpted from the document, focusing on statistically significant findings):

Note: Bolded Hazard Ratios indicate statistically significant findings (95% CI does not cross 1.0). Italicized Hazard Ratios (e.g., serum at 30, 90, 365 days for Population 2) are explicitly marked as "Not Statistically Significant" in the document.

The overall conclusion states: "The results of the clinical study provided in this submission support the addition of an indication for use as an aid in prognosis for all-cause mortality (ACM) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome (ACS)." This implies that the observed effects (higher risk for cTnI > 99th percentile) were deemed sufficient, particularly for the statistically significant findings.

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Population 1: 2064 patients
  • Population 2:
    • Lithium Heparin Plasma: 1190 patients
    • Serum: 1214 patients
  • Population 3: 874 patients
• Data Provenance: The document states, "This prognostic risk analysis utilized the same emergency department cohort previously described in K171566." It does not explicitly state the country of origin. The study was prospective in terms of follow-up for outcomes after initial presentation, as patients were "followed up for 30-, 90-, 182-, and 365-day progression to ACM and MACE."

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)

The ground truth for Adjudicated AMI was mentioned ("Entire Population Excluding Subjects with Adjudicated AMI"). The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used for establishing this adjudication or for the MACE/ACM outcomes. It says "a detailed symptom history was obtained for each subject" and "the following information was collected from each subject's medical chart." This suggests medical record review, but the specific adjudicators are not detailed.

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

The document mentions "adjudicated AMI" and the collection of outcome data (ACM/MACE events). However, it does not describe the specific adjudication method (e.g., how many reviewers, conflict resolution) for AMI or the MACE/ACM outcomes. It implies that MACE consisted of clearly defined clinical events (myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, cardiac death, or heart failure hospitalization) which are typically obtained from medical records.

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 is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for measuring a biomarker (Troponin I). It is not an AI-assisted imaging device or a device involving "human readers" in the typical sense of an MRMC study. The study assesses the prognostic performance of the cTnI assay result itself, not human interpretation enhanced by AI.

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

Yes, in a sense. The performance evaluated is that of the assay (the Atellica® IM High-Sensitivity Troponin I (TnIH) measurement) as a standalone prognostic indicator, reported as a quantitative value. It's the "algorithm" of the assay (producing the cTnI value) that is assessed for its ability to predict outcomes in patient populations, without direct human cognitive input being part of the primary performance metric. Clinical decision-making would then incorporate this result.

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

The ground truth for the prognostic indication was outcomes data, specifically:

• All-Cause Mortality (ACM)
• Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE): Consisting of myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, cardiac death, or heart failure hospitalization.
  This long-term outcome data was collected from patient follow-up over 30, 90, 182, and 365 days.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document describes a clinical performance study for the new prognostic indication. It does not mention a separate "training set" for model development, implying that this was a single-cohort validation study using the full collected dataset (the test set described above). The purpose of the submission is to expand the intended use of an already existing device (cleared under K171566), suggesting the core assay technology was already established.

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

As no separate "training set" is explicitly mentioned for the prognostic model development (if one occurred), this question is not fully answerable from the provided text. The ground truth for the clinical validation (the "test set") was established through prospective follow-up for clinical outcomes (ACM/MACE) as described in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ADVIA Centaur® TSH3-Ultra II (TSH3ULII) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH, thyrotropin) in human serum and plasma (EDTA and lithium heparin) using the ADVIA Centaur® XP system. Measurements of thyroid stimulating hormone produced by the anterior pituitary are used in the diagnosis of thyroid or pituitary disorders.

This assay is a third-generation assay that employs anti-FITC monoclonal antibody covalently bound to paramagnetic particles, an FITC-labeled anti-TSH capture mouse monoclonal antibody, and a tracer consisting of a proprietary acridinium ester and an anti-TSH mouse monoclonal antibody conjugated to bovine serum albumin (BSA) for chemiluminescent detection.

The provided text describes the ADVIA Centaur® TSH3-Ultra II (TSH3ULII) assay, a device for in vitro diagnostic quantitative determination of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). The document covers the device's indications for use, comparison with a predicate device, and performance characteristics data.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Limit of Detection (LoD): 0.008 µIU/mL (mIU/L)
• Limit of Quantitation (LoQ): 0.010 µIU/mL (mIU/L) (Lower than predicate device's LoQ of 0.008 µIU/mL, but within acceptable range for the new device as specified in assay range) |
  | Precision | - Repeatability (Within-Run):
  • ≤ 12% CV for 0.020–0.299 µIU/mL (mIU/L)
  • ≤ 6% CV for ≥ 0.300–90.000 µIU/mL (mIU/L)
  • ≤ 7% CV for > 90.000 µIU/mL (mIU/L)
• Within-Laboratory (Total Precision):
  • ≤ 16% CV for 0.020–0.299 µIU/mL (mIU/L)
  • ≤ 8% CV for ≥ 0.300–90.000 µIU/mL (mIU/L)
  • ≤ 10% CV for > 90.000 µIU/mL (mIU/L) | Reported values (all calculated Repeatability CV and Within-Laboratory CV values are within the specified limits):
• Serum A (0.088 µIU/mL): Repeatability CV 2.5%, Within-Lab CV 3.6%
• Serum B (0.196 µIU/mL): Repeatability CV 1.8%, Within-Lab CV 3.1%
• Serum C (0.507 µIU/mL): Repeatability CV 1.7%, Within-Lab CV 2.6%
• Serum D (4.752 µIU/mL): Repeatability CV 2.3%, Within-Lab CV 2.7%
• Serum E (46.749 µIU/mL): Repeatability CV 2.4%, Within-Lab CV 4.0%
• Serum F (97.929 µIU/mL): Repeatability CV 2.2%, Within-Lab CV 3.5%
  Similar acceptable results for Plasma and Controls. |
  | Reproducibility | - Reproducibility (Total):
  • ≤ 18.5% CV for 0.020-0.299 µIU/mL (mIU/L)
  • ≤ 10.5% CV for ≥ 0.300-90.000 µIU/mL (mIU/L)
  • ≤ 12.5% CV for > 90.000 µIU/mL (mIU/L) | Reported values (all calculated Reproducibility CV values are within the specified limits):
• Serum A (0.090 µIU/mL): Reproducibility CV 3.11%
• Serum B (0.178 µIU/mL): Reproducibility CV 4.87%
• Serum C (0.474 µIU/mL): Reproducibility CV 2.21%
• Serum D (4.684 µIU/mL): Reproducibility CV 2.47%
• Serum E (56.562 µIU/mL): Reproducibility CV 2.33%
• Serum F (99.522 µIU/mL): Reproducibility CV 4.12%
  Similar acceptable results for Plasma and Controls. |
  | Assay Comparison | - Correlation coefficient (r) ≥ 0.95
• Slope of 1.0 ± 0.1 | - Correlation coefficient (r): 0.999
• Regression Equation (Slope): 0.97 (within 1.0 ± 0.1) |
  | Specimen Equivalency | - Correlation coefficient (r) ≥ 0.95
• Slope of 0.95-1.05 | - Plasma, EDTA vs. Serum: r = 0.999, Slope = 0.99 (within 0.95-1.05)
• Plasma, lithium heparin vs. Serum: r = 0.990, Slope = 1.01 (within 0.95-1.05) |
  | Interferences (HIL) | Bias due to hemoglobin, bilirubin (conjugated/unconjugated), and Intralipid does not exceed 10% | Hemoglobin (500mg/dL), Bilirubin (40mg/dL), Intralipid (1000mg/dL) do not exceed 10% bias at TSH concentrations of ~0.900 µIU/mL and ~8.000 µIU/mL. |
  | Interferences (Other Substances) | Bias due to various common substances does not exceed 10% | Various substances (e.g., Acetaminophen, Aspirin, Biotin, Heparin, Ibuprofen, Levothyroxine) at specified concentrations do not exceed 10% bias at TSH concentrations of ~0.900 µIU/mL and ~8.000 µIU/mL. |
  | Cross-Reactivity | Cross-reactivity of hCG, FSH, and LH does not exceed 5% | hCG (200000 mIU/mL), FSH (1500 mIU/mL), LH (600 mIU/mL) at specified concentrations do not exceed 5% cross-reactivity at TSH concentrations of ~0.400, 5.00, 17.00, and 90.00 µIU/mL. |
  | Linearity | Device is linear throughout its measuring interval (0.010–150.000 µIU/mL) | "The assay is linear for the measuring interval of 0.010–150.000 µIU/mL (mIU/L)." |
  | High-Dose Hook Effect | Results for TSH concentrations above the measuring interval and up to 3000 µIU/mL should report > 150 µIU/mL (not a paradoxical decrease) | "Patient samples with TSH concentrations above the measuring interval and as high as 3000 µIU/mL will report > 150 µIU/mL (mIU/L)." (This confirms the absence of a significant high-dose hook effect within this specified range, meaning the device displays the result as above the measurable range.) |

The study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria is detailed across the "Performance Characteristics Data" section (Section 8) of the 510(k) Summary.

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

• Detection Capability (LoQ): Not specified (CLSI Document EP17-A2 was followed).
• Precision: 80 measurements (replicates of 2, 2 runs/day, 20-day protocol) for each of the 6 serum samples, 5 plasma samples, and 5 control samples. Total N for Precision study is 80 x (6+5+5) = 1280 measurements.
• Reproducibility: 225 measurements (replicates of 5, 1 run/day, 5-day protocol) for each of the 6 serum samples, 5 plasma samples, and 5 control samples. Total N for Reproducibility study is 225 x (6+5+5) = 3600 measurements.
• Assay Comparison: 973 samples.
• Specimen Equivalency:
  • Plasma, EDTA vs. Serum: 52 samples.
  • Plasma, lithium heparin vs. Serum: 57 samples.
• Interferences (HIL and Other Substances): Samples at two TSH concentrations (~0.900 µIU/mL and ~8.000 µIU/mL) were tested for each interfering substance. The exact number of individual samples tested is not given, but multiple samples would be required for the two TSH levels per substance.
• Cross-Reactivity: Samples at four TSH concentrations (~0.400, 5.00, 17.00, and 90.00 µIU/mL) were spiked with hCG, FSH, or LH. The exact number of individual samples is not given.
• Linearity: Not explicitly stated, but performed in accordance with CLSI Document EP06-ed2, which involves testing multiple diluted samples.
• High-Dose Hook Effect: Samples with TSH concentrations up to 3000 µIU/mL were evaluated. The number of samples tested is not explicitly stated.

Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. Given it's an in vitro diagnostic device, the samples would generally be human biological specimens, likely collected from a clinical laboratory setting. The use of CLSI documents (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) suggests standard laboratory practices.

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

This information is not provided in the document. For an in vitro diagnostic assay like TSH, "ground truth" is typically established by:

• The reference method against which the new assay is compared (for accuracy/assay comparison). In this case, "ADVIA Centaur TSH3-UL assay" is used as the comparative assay (the predicate device).
• Traceability to an international standard (WHO 3rd International Reference Preparation for human TSH (IRP 81/565)), which implies that the TSH values are calibrated against a universally accepted standard, rather than expert consensus on individual patient cases.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This refers to the process of resolving discrepancies in expert opinions, which is not applicable here as it is an analytical performance study for an IVD, not an interpretative AI device requiring human expert label agreement.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for AI-assisted diagnostic imaging devices where human readers interpret medical images with and without AI assistance. This document pertains to an in vitro diagnostic assay, which involves automated quantitative measurement of a biomarker.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

Yes, implicitly. The entire performance characterization (Detection Capability, Precision, Reproducibility, Assay Comparison, Specimen Equivalency, Interferences, Cross-Reactivity, Linearity, High-Dose Hook Effect) is describing the standalone performance of the TSH3-Ultra II assay as an automated laboratory test. There is no mention of "human-in-the-loop" for this device's intended diagnostic function.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the performance studies is established by:

• Reference materials/standards: For accuracy, the assay is traceable to the World Health Organization (WHO) 3rd International Reference Preparation for human TSH (IRP 81/565).
• Comparative method: For assay comparison, the predicate device (ADVIA Centaur TSH3-UL assay) results serve as the comparative standard.
• Defined concentrations: For precision, linearity, interferences, and cross-reactivity, samples with known or spiked concentrations of TSH or interfering substances are used.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not report a training set sample size. This is because the ADVIA Centaur TSH3-Ultra II is a chemical immunoassay, not a machine learning or AI-based device that would typically involve a "training set" in the computational sense. The "development" process for such an assay involves reagent formulation, assay optimization, and calibration curve development, which are distinct from training an AI model.

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

As there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model, this question is not applicable. The assay's analytical characteristics are established through various studies (precision, accuracy, linearity, etc.) using calibrated materials and established reference methods, as detailed in the performance characteristics.

Ask a specific question about this device

For in vitro diagnostic use with the IMMULITE® 2000 Systems Analyzers - for the quantitative measurement of CA15-3 antigen in human serum and plasma, as an aid in the detection of recurrence in previously treated stage III breast cancer patients, and in the management of metastatic breast cancer patients by monitoring disease progression or response to treatment. Serial testing for patient CA15-3 values should be used in conjunction with other clinical methods used for detecting early recurrence in stage III disease and for monitoring response to treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

The IMMULITE® 2000 BR-MA assay was cleared under K013984. The components of the cleared assay were modified to reduce biotin interference. The modified IMMULITE® 2000 BR-MA Assay is comprised of the following components: BR-MA Bead Pack (L2BR12), BR-MA Reagent Wedge (L2BRA2) - Well 1, BR-MA Reagent Wedge (L2BRA2) - Well 2, and BR-MA Adjustors (LBRL, LBRH). The IMMULITE 2000 BR-MA is a solid-phase, two-step chemiluminescent immunometric assay. There are two incubation cycles of 30 minutes each. During the initial 30-minute cycle, the patient sample is incubated with biotinylated antibody coated bead (bead pack) and a buffer (reagent wedge well 1). The biotinylated antibody on the bead captures the antigen in the patient sample. On completion of the first 30-minute cycle, unbound sample/buffer are then removed via a centrifugal wash. During the second 30-minute cycle, alkaline phosphatase antibody conjugate in buffer (reagent wedge well 2) is added to complete the bead pair immunocomplex sandwich consisting of capture Ab-antigen-detection Ab. On completion of the second 30-minute cycle, unbound conjuqate is removed by centrifugal wash. The amount of alkaline phosphatase bound is directly proportional to the patient sample. Following the two 30-minute incubation periods. IMMULITE chemiluminescent substrate (L2SUBM) is added for a further 5-minute incubation period to generate the luminogenic reaction. The chemiluminescent substrate undergoes hydrolysis in the alkaline phosphatase to yield an unstable intermediate, which then emits photons. The sustained emissions are measured by the luminometer. The resulting relative light units are proportional to the concentration of CA15-3 in the sample, which is expressed as U/mL.

The retrieved document describes the acceptance criteria and performance of the IMMULITE 2000 BR-MA assay, which is a tumor-associated antigen immunological test system for CA15-3. The modifications to the device primarily focus on reducing biotin interference.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" against "reported device performance" in a single table. Instead, it presents performance characteristic studies that implicitly demonstrate the device meets certain standards. I've aggregated these into a table format below, using typical performance metrics for such devices. The "Acceptance Criteria" are implied by common laboratory standards (e.g., CLSI guidelines) and the successful outcome of the tests.

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

• Detection Limits (LoB, LoD, LoQ): The specific sample size for determining LoB, LoD, and LoQ is not explicitly stated as a number of individual patient samples, but the study was conducted "in accordance with CLSI EP17-A2," which provides methodologies for these determinations.
• Linearity/Measuring Interval: A high and low sample pool were used to prepare a panel of ten levels. The number of individual patient samples contributing to these pools is not specified.
• Method Comparison: 274 patient samples.
• Assay Precision: Five serum samples. Each tested in duplicate over 20 days, two runs per day (total 80 replicates per sample). Total N for data points is 400 (5 samples * 80 replicates).
• Assay Reproducibility: Five serum samples. Each tested over 5 days, with 5 replicates per sample (total 25 replicates per sample) across 3 reagent lots. Total N of data points is 375 (5 samples * 25 replicates * 3 reagent lots).
• Recovery: 5 neat samples spiked with 3 different concentrations of CA15-3 solution.
• Interference: Not specified as a number of patient samples, but various compounds were tested.
• Hook Effect: Not specified as a number of patient samples.
• Reference Range Verification: 69 apparently healthy female samples across 3 lots (total 207 results).
• Matrix Comparison: Not explicitly specified, but "comparable values to serum samples" were demonstrated across SST, Lithium Heparin, and EDTA tube types.

Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. It refers to human serum and plasma samples and "patient samples" and "apparently healthy female samples" without further geographical or temporal details.

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

This information is not applicable to this type of device. The IMMULITE 2000 BR-MA is an in vitro diagnostic assay that quantitatively measures CA15-3 antigen. Its performance characteristics are established through analytical studies (e.g., precision, linearity, interference) and comparisons to a predicate device or established laboratory methods, rather than through expert interpretation of outputs to establish a "ground truth" (as might be seen in imaging AI, for example). The ground truth for this device is the actual concentration of the analyte, verified through reference methods or spiked samples with known concentrations.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As described above, this device's performance is not evaluated through expert adjudication of results but rather by comparing its quantitative measurements to known values or to a predicate device, and assessing its analytical characteristics.

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

Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation system requiring human "readers." The "human reader" concept is not relevant here.

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

The device is an automated in vitro diagnostic assay. Its primary function is to perform quantitative measurements of CA15-3. The performance studies described (detection limits, linearity, precision, etc.) are all standalone performance evaluations of the assay itself, without a "human-in-the-loop" component in the sense of interpreting an output that then needs human review for diagnosis. The device provides a quantitative result (U/mL), which is then used by a clinician in conjunction with other clinical methods. So, yes, the performance data presented are for the standalone analytical performance of the device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used in the performance studies includes:

• Known concentrations: For linearity, recovery, interference, and hook effect studies, samples are often prepared with known concentrations of the analyte or interferents.
• Reference methods/Predicate device: For method comparison, results from the candidate device are compared against results from the legally marketed predicate device.
• Statistical methods: Established CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) guidelines provide the statistical framework and generally accepted methodologies for determining metrics like LoB, LoD, LoQ, precision, and linearity.
• Clinically defined healthy populations: For reference range verification, samples from "apparently healthy female samples" are used.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document describes performance studies for a modified in vitro diagnostic assay. These studies are typically for verification and validation, not for "training" an algorithm in the sense of machine learning. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of algorithm development or machine learning. The studies primarily evaluate the analytical performance of the modified assay components.

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

As there is no mention of a "training set" for an algorithm, this question is not applicable. The device's mechanism is based on immunometric assay principles using chemical reactions, not on training data for a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Atellica® CH High Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein 2 (hCRP2) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of the concentration of C-Reactive Protein (CRP) in human serum and plasma (lithium heparin, sodium heparin or K2 EDTA) on the Atellica® CH Analyzer.

Measurements from Atellica® CH High Sensitivity C -Reactive Protein 2 (hCRP2) may be used as an aid in identification of individuals at risk for future cardiovascular disease. Measurement of hCRP2, when used in coniunction with traditional clinical laboratory evaluation of acute coronary syndromes, may be useful as an independent marker of prognosis for recurrent events in patients with stable coronary disease or acute coronary syndromes.

The Atellica CH High Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein 2 (hCRP2) assay is used for the quantitative determination of C-Reactive protein in human serum and plasma using the Atellica CH analyzer. This device is two ready-to-use reagent packs consisting of 23.1mL Phosphate buffer, polidocanol (1.9g/L), and sodium azide (0.1%) in Pack 1 and 12.3mL Mouse anti-CRP monoclonal antibodies (13mg/L), polystyrene particles (1g/L), human albumin (0.05%) and sodium azide (

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

Device: Atellica® CH High Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein 2 (hCRP2) assay

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Detection Capability:
  • LoB: 3 reagent lots, 6 blank samples, 5 replicates per sample = 90 determinations.
  • LoD: 495 determinations (270 blank, 225 low-level replicates) using 3 reagent lots.
  • LoQ: 5 native low analyte serum samples, 5 replicates each = 25 determinations.
• Precision (Repeatability/Within-Lab): 80 replicates per specimen (5 serum samples + 1 QC, total 6 specimens).
• Reproducibility (Multi-site/Multi-lot): 225 replicates per specimen (5 serum samples + 3 QCs, total 8 specimens).
• Assay Comparison (Method Comparison): 100 patient samples.
• Specimen Equivalency: 55 patient samples for each specimen type (Sodium Heparin, Potassium EDTA, Lithium Heparin).
• Interferences (HIL & Non-interfering Substances): Not explicitly stated, but typically involves a smaller number of samples spiked with interferents at multiple analyte concentrations.

Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the sample types are human serum and plasma, diluted with Atellica CH diluent (saline) or enriched as needed. This usually implies a mix of commercially sourced and/or in-house collected human samples. There is no information regarding the country of origin or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective.

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

This device is an in vitro diagnostic test for C-Reactive Protein (CRP) concentration. The "ground truth" for a quantitative assay like this is typically established by:

• Reference methods/standards (e.g., ERM-DA474/IFCC for CRP, as mentioned).
• Comparative analysis against a legally marketed predicate device (BN ProSpec CardioPhase hsCRP).
• Standard preparation and gravimetric/volumetric assurance for spiked samples or known concentrations.

Therefore, "experts" in the sense of clinical reviewers or pathologists establishing a diagnostic ground truth is not applicable here. The accuracy of the measurements is compared against established analytical criteria and methodologies.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable in the context of this type of IVD performance study, as there is no subjective interpretation requiring adjudication of results from different observers. The output is a quantitative value (mg/L).

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 is relevant for imaging or diagnostic tests where human interpretation plays a significant role and AI assistance might influence reader performance. For a quantitative in vitro diagnostic assay like high-sensitivity CRP, the measurement is automated and objective.

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

Yes, the studies described (Detection Capability, Precision, Reproducibility, Assay Comparison, Specimen Equivalency, Interferences, High-Dose Hook Effect) are all standalone performance evaluations of the Atellica CH High Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein 2 (hCRP2) assay as an automated laboratory test on the Atellica CH Analyzer. The device is intended for in vitro diagnostic use, meaning it operates without direct human interpretive input beyond running the test and reading the numerical result.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth for this device is established through:

• Analytical Standards: The assay is traceable to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) reference material ERM-DA474/IFCC, which serves as a primary ground truth for CRP concentration.
• Predicate Device Comparison: The performance is compared against a legally marketed predicate device (BN ProSpec CardioPhase hsCRP assay), where the predicate's measurements serve as a comparative standard.
• Reference Intervals: Expected values for cardiovascular risk prediction are based on established clinical guidelines (Pearson TA et al., 2003).
• Spiked Samples: For interference studies, known concentrations of interfering substances are added to samples, and the known concentration of the analyte is the ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not explicitly stated in the 510(k) summary. For a device like this, the "training set" would refer to the samples used during the development and optimization phase of the assay (e.g., reagent formulation, calibration curve development), rather than a machine learning training set. The approval document focuses on the validation or test sets.

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

Similar to point 7, the ground truth for potential "training" (development/optimization) would involve analytical standards (like ERM-DA474/IFCC), purified CRP, and well-characterized human serum/plasma samples, often with known CRP concentrations determined by reference methods or gravimetric/volumetric preparation. The goal would be to develop a robust assay that accurately measures CRP across its analytical range.

Ask a specific question about this device

In-vitro diagnostic reagents for the quantitative determination of immunoglobulins (IgG. IgA and IgM) in human serum, heparinized and EDTA plasma, and IgG in human urine and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by means of immunonephelometry on the BN II and BN ProSpec® System. Measurements of IgG aid in the diagnosis of abnormal protein metabolism and the body's lack of ability to resist infectious agents.

The N Antiserum to Human IgG reagent containing animal serum, produced by immunization of rabbits with highly purified human immunoglobulin (

The provided text describes a special 510(k) premarket notification for a modified device, "N Antisera to Human Immunoglobulins (IgG, IgA, and IgM)". The sole modification is the addition of a High Dose Hook (HDH) effect claim for IgG in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples.

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

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

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

• Sample Size: The study used a "CSF high sample pool." The exact number of individual patient samples contributing to this pool (if multiple were pooled) is not specified. However, the study involved a dilution scheme with twelve (12) individual dilution levels, including the neat sample.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The manufacturer is Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products GmbH, located in Marburg, Germany, which suggests the study was likely conducted in Germany or a similar geographic region. It is implicitly a prospective study designed to evaluate the HDH effect for the modified device.

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)

This section is not applicable as the device is an in-vitro diagnostic reagent for quantitative determination, not an imaging or interpretive device that would typically require expert ground truth establishment in the described manner. The "ground truth" for this type of test is the quantitatively measured concentration of IgG in a sample, established through laboratory methods and comparison to known standards.

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

This section is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for establishing ground truth in interpretive studies (e.g., radiologists reviewing images). For a quantitative in-vitro diagnostic test, the "ground truth" is determined by the analytical method itself against known standards.

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 is not applicable. The device is an in-vitro diagnostic reagent, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool or an imaging device requiring human reader interpretation. No MRMC study was performed.

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

This refers to the performance of the analytical system (N Antisera reagent on BN II System) without human intervention in the measurement process. The HDH study performed is a standalone performance evaluation of the reagent/instrument system. The acceptance criteria and performance data in the table above demonstrate this standalone performance.

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

For this in-vitro diagnostic device, the "ground truth" for the High Dose Hook study was established by creating known dilutions of a high-concentration CSF sample, which were then measured by the device. The reported concentrations for these dilutions serve as the reference. The ultimate analytical ground truth for the quantitative measurement itself is tied to international standards like ERM-DA470k/IFCC (as stated in the "Traceability/Standardization" section).

8. The sample size for the training set

This document does not describe the development or training of a machine learning model, so there is no training set in the typical sense. The "training" for such a diagnostic test involves method development, optimization, and validation using various samples and controls, but these are not referred to as a "training set" for an algorithm.

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

As there is no training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device