Search Results

Not Found

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "CAMPYLOBACTER CHEK." This letter primarily addresses the regulatory status and marketing approval of the device, rather than the detailed technical performance data or a description of the study that proves the device meets acceptance criteria.

The information requested in the prompt, specifically regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for training and test sets, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, and detailed ground truth types, are typically found in the device's 510(k) summary or the pivotal study report, which are not included in the provided document.

Therefore,Based on the provided document, I cannot answer the questions regarding the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter, which confirms regulatory approval but does not contain the detailed performance study information required to answer your questions. This type of information would typically be found in the 510(k) summary document or the underlying scientific study report submitted to the FDA, which is not part of this letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

Not Found

Not Found

This FDA letter is a 510(k) clearance for a device called "CAMPYLOBACTER QUIK CHEK". It confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. This type of letter does not contain the detailed study information required to answer your questions.

To describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, I would need access to the actual 510(k) summary, clinical study reports, or performance data submitted by Techlab, Inc. and reviewed by the FDA. The information you're asking for would typically be found in those documents, not in the clearance letter itself.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based solely on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TECHLAB H. PYLORI CHEK™ test is an enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Helicobacter pylori specific antigen. It is intended for use with human fecal specimens to aid in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection and to demonstrate loss of H. pylori antigen following treatment. The test can be used with unpreserved fecal specimens and fecal specimens preserved in transport media from patients suspected of H. pylori infection. Testing of patients to demonstrate loss of H. pylori antigen following treatment should be performed no sooner than 4 weeks after completion of the treatment regimen. Test results should be taken into consician in conjunction with the patient history and symptoms.

The H. PYLORI CHEK™ test uses antibodies specific to H. pylori antigen. The Microassay Plate in the kit contains immobilized capture antibodies aqainst H. pylori antigen. The Conjugate consists of antibodies specific to H, pylori antigen conjucated to horseradish peroxidase. In the assay, an aliquot of a diluted fecal specimen is transferred to a microassay well containing the Conjugate. If the antigen is present in the specimen, it will bind to the Coniugate and to the immobilized capture antibody during the incubation phase. Any unbound material is removed during the washing steps. Following the addition of Substrate, a color is detected due to the enzyme-antibody-antigen complexes that formed in the presence of antigen.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for H. PYLORI CHEK™ Test

This document describes the acceptance criteria for the H. PYLORI CHEK™ test, an enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Helicobacter pylori specific antigen in human fecal specimens, and the studies performed to demonstrate that the device meets these criteria.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Sets

• Initial Diagnosis: 109 patients. The data was collected prospectively from patients undergoing endoscopy as part of routine care at 6 independent sites. The country of origin is not explicitly stated but is implicitly within the US given the FDA submission.
• Post-Therapy: 9 samples from patients being tested post-therapy. Data provenance is similar to the initial diagnosis group (prospectively collected, unclear country of origin but likely US).
• Retrospective Sample Study: 196 samples (75 positive, 121 negative by comparison ELISA). The provenance is "retrospective," and the country of origin is not specified but commonly implies US labs for FDA submissions unless otherwise noted.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth in Test Set

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience as a radiologist) for establishing the ground truth.

For the Initial Diagnosis and Post-Therapy studies, the ground truth was established by a Composite Reference Method (CRM). This CRM consisted of:
* Rapid urease testing of biopsy samples.
* Histology of biopsy samples.

For the Retrospective Sample Study, the ground truth was an FDA cleared commercial ELISA.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method for establishing the ground truth based on the Composite Reference Method (CRM) (rapid urease and histology) is not explicitly described. It is implied that a consensus or predefined rule was used to combine these two methods to determine the CRM positive or negative status. No adjudication by human readers for the device under evaluation is mentioned for this standalone performance study.

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

No Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was mentioned or performed. This study focuses on the standalone performance of the diagnostic test.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was conducted. The performance data for the H. PYLORI CHEK™ test (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, agreement) are reported as the performance of the device without human interpretation (other than reading the device output). While visual reading of plates was also mentioned (achieving 99% agreement with spectrophotometric results), the primary reported performance metrics are based on the more objective dual wavelength spectrophotometric analysis.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used was:

• Composite Reference Method (CRM): For the initial diagnosis and post-therapy studies, which combined rapid urease and histology from biopsy samples. This is considered a high-standard clinical ground truth.
• FDA cleared commercial ELISA: For the retrospective sample study, representing a comparative method ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a separate training set or its sample size. This type of device (enzyme immunoassay) typically does not involve a "training set" in the same way machine learning algorithms do. Instead, it relies on extensive analytical validation and clinical performance studies to establish its effectiveness.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

As no explicit training set for an AI/ML algorithm is mentioned, there is no information provided on how ground truth for a training set would have been established. The development of this immunoassay would involve internal R&D and validation, but these stages are distinct from the "training set" concept in AI/ML.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TECHLAB® H. PYLORI QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative detection of Helicobacter pylori specific antigen in a single use cassette. It is intended for use with human fecal specimens to aid in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection and to demonstrate loss of H. pylori antigen following treatment. The test can be used with unpreserved fecal specimens and fecal specimens preserved in transport media from patients suspected of H. pylori infection. Testing of patients to demonstrate loss of H. pylori antigen following treatment should be performed no sooner than 4 weeks after completion of the treatment regimen. Test results should be taken into consideration by the physician in conjunction with the patient history and symptoms.

The H. PYLORI QUIK CHEK™ test utilizes antibodies specific for H. pylori antigen. The Membrane Device contains a Reaction Window with two vertical lines of immobilized antibodies. The test line ("T") contains antibodies specific for H, pylori antigen. The ("C") contains antibodies to horseradish peroxidase (HRP). The Conjugate consists of antibodies to H. pylori antigen coupled to horseradish peroxidase. To perform the test, the sample is added to a tube containing a mixture of Diluent and Conjugate. The diluted sample-conjugate mixture is added to the Sample Well and the device is allowed to incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes. During the incubation, any H. pylori antigen in the sample binds to the antibody-peroxidase conjugate. The antigen-antibody-peroxidase complexes migrate through a filter pad to a membrane where they are captured by the immobilized anti-H. pylori antigen antibodies in the test line. The Reaction Window is subsequently washed with Wash Buffer, followed by the addition of Substrate. After a 10-minute incubation period, the Reaction Window is examined visually for the appearance of vertical blue lines on the "C" and "T" sides of the Reaction Window. A blue line on the "T" side of the Reaction Window indicates a positive result. A positive "C" reaction, indicated by a vertical blue line on the "C" side of the Reaction Window, confirms that the sample and reagents were added correctly, the reagents were active at the time of performing the assay, and that the sample migrated properly through the Membrane Device. It also confirms the reactivity of the other reagents associated with the assay.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study data for the H. PYLORI QUIK CHEK™ device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as distinct numerical targets (e.g., "sensitivity must be >90%"). Instead, the document presents the performance data and implies these values are acceptable for demonstrating substantial equivalence. The key performance metrics are Sensitivity and Specificity compared to a Composite Reference Method (CRM) for initial diagnosis, and Sensitivity for post-therapy. Also included are agreement rates from a retrospective study against an FDA-cleared ELISA, and analytical sensitivity (Limit of Detection).

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

• Initial Diagnosis & Post-Therapy Study:

  • Sample Size: 122 patients for initial diagnosis, 9 samples for post-therapy.
  • Data Provenance: The study was conducted at 6 independent sites. It involved patients "undergoing endoscopy as part of routine care," suggesting prospective enrollment of clinical samples. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but given the FDA submission, it is likely the US.

• Retrospective Sample Study:

  • Sample Size: 200 samples (94 positive and 106 negative by the commercial ELISA).
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective study. Country of origin not specified.

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

• Initial Diagnosis & Post-Therapy Study:

  • Number of Experts: Not specified.
  • Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The ground truth was a Composite Reference Method (CRM) consisting of "rapid urease and histology of the biopsy samples." These methods are typically performed and interpreted by pathologists and gastroenterologists/endoscopists, but the specific number or qualifications of individuals involved in the CRM determination are not detailed.

• Retrospective Sample Study:

  • Number of Experts: Not applicable, as ground truth was established by an "FDA cleared commercial ELISA."
  • Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Initial Diagnosis & Post-Therapy Study: The document states "A composite reference method (CRM) comparison was used in the evaluation consisting of rapid urease and histology of the biopsy samples." This implies a combined clinical assessment, but the specific adjudication method (e.g., how discrepancies between rapid urease and histology were resolved, or if multiple readings were combined) is not detailed.
• Retrospective Sample Study: Adjudication was not involved as the comparison was against a single FDA-cleared commercial ELISA. PCR was used to further investigate discordant results, but this was for understanding discrepancies, not for establishing initial ground truth.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study focuses on the standalone performance of the device compared to a reference method, not on how human readers' performance improves with or without the device. The H. PYLORI QUIK CHEK™ is a laboratory test, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human interpretation.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire clinical performance section (Initial Diagnosis, Post-Therapy) and the retrospective sample study describe the performance of the H. PYLORI QUIK CHEK™ test on its own, producing a qualitative (positive/negative) result, against an established ground truth or cleared predicate device. This is the standalone performance of the algorithm/device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Initial Diagnosis & Post-Therapy Study: Composite Reference Method (CRM) consisting of rapid urease and histology of biopsy samples.
• Retrospective Sample Study: An FDA cleared commercial ELISA. Discordant results were further investigated using H. pylori DNA amplification with PCR.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly mention a training set or details about its size. This is a diagnostic device (an enzyme immunoassay), not a software or AI algorithm that typically requires a distinct training phase on a dataset. The development of such a device involves optimizing reagents and protocols, which is a different process than machine learning algorithm training.

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

• As a distinct "training set" for an algorithm is not described, the method for establishing ground truth for such a set is not applicable/not provided in this document. The device's components (antibodies, reagents) would have been developed and validated through internal R&D processes, likely using characterized H. pylori samples and controls, but this isn't presented as a formal "training set" in the context of this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CAMPYLOBACTER CHEK™ test is an enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative detection of a Campylobacter-specific antigen in human fecal specimens. The CAMPYLOBACTER CHEK™ test is designed to detect C. jejuni and C. coli from patients with signs and symptoms of gastroenteritis. The test is intended for use with preserved fecal specimens in transport media and unpreserved fecal specimens. Test results should be considered in conjunction with clinical findings and patient history.

The CAMPYLOBACTER CHEK™ test uses antibodies that recognize a Campylobacter-specific antigen. The Microassay Plate in the kit contains immobilized capture monoclonal antibodies against a Campylobacter-specific antigen. The Conjugate consists of polyclonal antibodies to a Campylobacter-specific antigen conjugated to horseradish peroxidase. In the assay, an aliquot of a diluted fecal specimen is transferred to a microassay well containing the Conjugate. If the antigen is present in the specimen, it will bind to the Conjugate and to the immobilized capture antibody during the incubation phase. Any unbound material is removed during the washing steps. Following the addition of Substrate, a color is detected due to the enzyme-antibody-antigen complexes that formed in the presence of antigen.

The document describes the CAMPYLOBACTER CHEK™ test, an enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative detection of a Campylobacter-specific antigen in human fecal specimens. It is designed to detect C. jejuni and C. coli from patients with signs and symptoms of gastroenteritis.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of specific sensitivity and specificity thresholds. However, it presents the reported performance from a prospective clinical study, which implicitly serves as the successful demonstration of performance for clearance. The predicate device's performance is not provided in a comparative table within the document, so a direct comparison of acceptance criteria to predicate performance isn't possible from the given text.

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

• Sample Size (Prospective Study): N = 1552 patients.
• Data Provenance: The prospective study was conducted at "4 independent sites." The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the document refers to the "U.S. Formulation" for interfering substances testing, suggesting a U.S. context for the clinical studies. The data is prospective, meaning specimens were collected and tested over time.

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

The ground truth for the prospective study was primarily established by bacterial culture.

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications: Since traditional bacterial culture is the method, it would implicitly involve trained laboratory technologists or microbiologists. Specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with X years of experience) are not applicable or provided in this context as it's not an imaging device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The primary comparison was between the CAMPYLOBACTER CHEK™ test and culture. For discrepant specimens (14 culture-negative/device-positive and 3 culture-positive/device-negative), additional testing was performed at TECHLAB.

• Adjudication Method: "The 17 discrepant specimens were further characterized by additional testing at TECHLAB. This testing included an FDA-cleared commercial Microassay well EIA, an FDA-cleared commercial molecular test, in-house PCR (detecting the 16s rRNA gene of Campylobacter specific identification), and bidirectional sequencing." This indicates a multi-method adjudication process.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay that produces a qualitative result, not an imaging device requiring human reader interpretation in the context of improving diagnostic accuracy with AI assistance.

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

Yes, the performance reported (Sensitivity 91.4%, Specificity 99.1%) is for the CAMPYLOBACTER CHEK™ test operating as a standalone diagnostic assay. The results are read by either visual inspection or spectrophotometric means, but the performance metrics reflect the direct output of the assay compared to the reference method (culture).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Primary Ground Truth: Bacterial Culture (for the prospective study).
• Adjudication Ground Truth: For discrepant results, a combination of "FDA-cleared commercial Microassay well EIA, an FDA-cleared commercial molecular test, in-house PCR (detecting the 16s rRNA gene of Campylobacter specific identification), and bidirectional sequencing." This represents a form of expert consensus or multi-method confirmation based on established diagnostic techniques.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document describes performance studies, but it does not mention a training set in the context of an algorithm or machine learning model. This device is an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kit, which is a laboratory test, not an AI/ML software device. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" for an algorithm is not applicable here. The development of the assay itself would have involved extensive R&D and optimization, but not in the sense of a machine learning training set.

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

As noted above, the concept of a "training set" for an algorithm is not applicable to this device. Therefore, no ground truth for a training set was established in the context of AI/ML development.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CAMPYLOBACTER QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the qualitative detection of a Campylobacter-specific antigen in human fecal specimens. The CAMPYLOBACTER QUIK CHEK™ test is designed to detect C. jejuni and C. coli from patients with signs and symptoms of gastroenteritis. The test is intended for use with preserved fecal specimens in transport media and unpreserved fecal specimens. Test results should be considered in conjunction with clinical findings and patient history.

The CAMPYLOBACTER QUIK CHEK™ test uses antibodies that recognize a Campylobacter-specific antigen in human fecal samples. The device contains a Reaction Window with two vertical lines of immobilized antibodies. The test line ("T") contains antibodies against a Campylobacter-specific antigen. The control line ("C"), contains anti-IgG antibodies. The Conjugate consists of antibodies to a Campylobacter-specific antigen coupled to horseradish peroxidase. To perform the test, a fecal specimen is added to a tube containing a mixture of Diluent and Conjugate. The diluted sample-conjugate mixture is added to the Sample Well and the device is allowed to incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes. During the incubation, the Campylobacter-specific antigens in the sample bind to the antibody-peroxidase conjugate. The antigen-antibody complexes migrate through a filter pad to a membrane where they are captured by the immobilized anti-Campylobacter antibodies in the line. The Reaction Window is subsequently washed with Wash Buffer, followed by the addition of Substrate. After a 10-minute incubation, the "T" reaction is examined visually for the appearance of a vertical blue line. A blue line indicates a positive "C" reaction, indicated by a vertical blue line, monitors/confirms that the sample and reagents were added correctly, the reagents were active at the time of performing the assay, and that the sample migrated properly through the Membrane Device. It also confirms the reactivity of the other reagents associated with the assay and that the results are valid.

The document describes the performance of the CAMPYLOBACTER QUIK CHEK™ test, a rapid membrane enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the qualitative detection of a Campylobacter-specific antigen in human fecal specimens.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device are implied by the reported performance relative to a "gold standard" (culture followed by further confirmation for discrepant results). While explicit numerical acceptance criteria are not stated for sensitivity and specificity in the provided text, the reported performance is presented as the device meeting the equivalency with the predicate and performing as well or better than standard culture.

Additional performance aspects that were evaluated include:

• Analytical Sensitivity (LoD): Established at various CFU/mL and CFU/test for C. jejuni and C. coli in raw fecal samples and different transport media.
• Analytical Specificity (Cross-Reactivity): No interference found with a broad panel of common intestinal organisms and viruses.
• Inclusivity: Found to be reactive with several tested strains of C. coli and C. jejuni (including C. jejuni sub-species doylei).
• Reproducibility: 100% correlation in results across different labs, technicians, and kit lots, with expected results 100% of the time.
• Prozone Effect: No prozone effect observed at high antigen concentrations.

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

• Sample Size (Prospective Study): 1552 patients.
• Data Provenance (Prospective Study): The study was conducted at 4 independent sites. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the submission is to the U.S. FDA, and U.S. formulation information is mentioned for interfering substances, implying a U.S. context. The study was prospective, as it involved "Prospective incoming fecal specimens collected and tested."
• Sample Size (Retrospective Study): 30 specimens.
• Data Provenance (Retrospective Study): The data provenance (country) for the retrospective specimens is not specified. The study was retrospective.

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

The ground truth for the primary clinical performance comparison (prospective study) was established by culture. While culture is a standard method, the text does not mention the number or qualifications of experts involved in performing or interpreting the initial culture results.

For the discrepant specimens (14 from the prospective study and 30 from the retrospective study), further characterization was performed using:

• An FDA-cleared commercial Microassay well EIA
• An FDA-cleared commercial molecular test
• In-house PCR (detecting the 16s rRNA gene of Campylobacter specific identification, and species-specific identification for the retrospective study)
• Bidirectional sequencing

The number of experts involved in interpreting these additional confirmatory tests or establishing a final consensus ground truth for discrepants is not specified in the document, nor are their qualifications.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

For the initial 1552 prospective specimens, the comparison was directly between the CAMPYLOBACTER QUIK CHEK™ test and culture.

For the 14 discrepant specimens (culture negative/device positive, or culture positive/device negative) from the prospective study, an adjudication method was used by referring them for additional testing with multiple methods (commercial EIA, commercial molecular test, in-house PCR, bidirectional sequencing) at TECHLAB. The results of these additional tests were used to "confirm" the status of the discrepant samples. For example, 9 out of 13 culture negative/device positive samples were confirmed positive by all additional test methods. This suggests a form of consensus or comprehensive secondary testing was used to re-evaluate the true status of these discrepant cases. The specific consensus rule (e.g., majority vote, all methods agree) is not explicitly detailed.

For the 30 retrospective specimens, all were initially Campylobacter spp. culture positive and were "further characterized as Campylobacter spp. positive by an FDA-cleared commercial Microassay well EIA, an FDA-cleared commercial molecular test, in-house PCR... and bidirectional sequencing." This indicates a multi-method confirmation process for the ground truth of these samples before being tested retrospectively by the device.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done, and Effect Size

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance was not done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for antigen detection, not an AI-powered image analysis or diagnostic aid for human readers. Therefore, the concept of human readers improving with AI assistance is not applicable here.

6. If a Standalone Study Was Done

Yes, a standalone study was performed ("algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance"). The entire performance evaluation, including the prospective and retrospective studies, analytical sensitivity, specificity, inclusivity, and prozone, evaluates the performance of the CAMPYLOBACTER QUIK CHEK™ test device itself. The primary clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) is presented for the device's ability to detect the target antigen compared to culture.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for the clinical performance evaluation (prospective study) was bacterial culture.

For discrepant samples, the ground truth was further refined and confirmed by multiple orthogonal laboratory methods, including an FDA-cleared commercial Microassay well EIA, an FDA-cleared commercial molecular test, in-house PCR, and bidirectional sequencing. This can be considered a form of expert consensus derived from multiple confirmatory tests.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information on a training set sample size. This is likely because the CAMPYLOBACTER QUIK CHEK™ test is a traditional immunoassay device, not an AI/machine learning model that typically requires a large training dataset. The studies described are for validation and performance evaluation of the manufactured device.

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

As no training set is mentioned for an AI/machine learning model, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TECHLAB® TRI-COMBO PARASITE SCREEN test is an enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection of Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp. and/or E. histolytica antigen in human fecal specimens. The test is indicated as an aid in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal infection when giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis and amebiasis is suspected. The test does not differentiate between the three parasites and follow-up testing is required for all positive results to confirm the specific diagnosis.

The TRI-COMBO PARASITE SCREEN test is an enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection of Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp. and/or E. histolytica antigen in human fecal specimens. The test uses monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies to cell-surface antigens of Giardia, Cryptosporidium and E. histolytica. The microassay plate in the kit contains immobilized monoclonal antibodies against the antigens, and the Conjugate consists of polyclonal antibodies against the antigens. In the assay, an aliquot of a diluted fecal specimen is transferred to a microassay well. The immobilized monoclonal antibodies bind the Giardia, Cryptosporidium and/or E. histolytica antigens if they are present. Upon addition, Conjugate then binds to the antigen/ antibody complex. Any unbound materials are removed during the washing steps. Following the addition of Substrate, a color is detected due to the enzyme-antibody-antigen complexes that formed in the presence of antigens and conjugate.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the TECHLAB® TRI-COMBO PARASITE SCREEN test, structured according to your requested points:

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

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "The device must achieve sensitivity of X% and specificity of Y%"). Instead, it presents performance data which implicitly serves as the basis for the FDA's substantial equivalence decision. Therefore, I will present the reported performance data from the prospective clinical study as the proxy for "acceptance criteria met." For the retrospective study, while providing higher values, the prospective study is generally weighted more heavily for regulatory approval as it reflects real-world conditions more closely. The document also provides "95% Confidence Limits" for sensitivity and specificity.

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

• Prospective Study:
  • Sample Size: 754 (740 negative, 14 microscopy positive - 13 Giardia, 1 E. histolytica)
  • Data Provenance: Conducted at 3 independent clinical sites. Specific country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the submission is to the U.S. FDA by a U.S. company, suggesting U.S. clinical sites. The data is prospective.
• Retrospective Study:
  • Sample Size: 96 archived specimens (previously collected and frozen)
  • Data Provenance: From one clinical site in an E. histolytica endemic area (not specified by country). The data is retrospective.

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 document primarily refers to "microscopy" and "molecular testing."

• Microscopy: It states that "accuracy of O&P results depends upon the skill of the technician." This implies trained laboratory technicians or medical technologists are performing microscopy. However, the exact number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., board certification, years of experience) are not provided in the document.
• Molecular Testing: The document mentions "molecular testing of a commercial FDA cleared device and PCR with sequencing." It does not specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in interpreting or performing these molecular tests.

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

The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) involving multiple human readers for discrepancies. Instead, discrepancies between the device and microscopy were resolved via further testing:

• For the prospective study, the 14 TRI-COMBO PARASITE SCREEN positives that were microscopy negative were "confirmed to be positive for Giardia with an alternate FDA cleared antigen test or by PCR with sequencing." This constitutes a form of resolution by a more definitive method rather than human adjudication.

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 an AI-assisted device for human readers. The device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay for detecting antigens in fecal specimens. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers improving with AI assistance is not applicable to this device. The comparison is between the immunoassay and traditional methods (microscopy and molecular testing).

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

Yes, the device is a standalone diagnostic test (an immunoassay). Its performance is evaluated directly against comparator methods (microscopy, PCR, other FDA-cleared antigen tests) without human interpretation of the device's generated data being a variable. The test results are "spectrophotometric" or "visual" interpretations of a color change, but the core performance data reflects the device's ability to detect the analytes by itself.

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

The ground truth for the test sets was established using a combination of:

• Microscopy: Primarily light microscopy for identification of Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and E. histolytica.
• Molecular Testing:
  • For the prospective study, "composite results from multiple tests that consisted of light microscopy, molecular testing of a commercial FDA cleared device and PCR with sequencing for the identification of Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., in addition to identification and subspeciation of E. histolytica." This "composite" is considered the ground truth.
  • For discrepancies, "alternate FDA cleared antigen test or by PCR with sequencing" was used.
• Archived Specimen Characterization: For the retrospective study, specimens were characterized as "microscopy and PCR positive."

8. The sample size for the training set

The document describes performance studies for the device but does not mention a training set because this is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay, not a machine learning or AI-based device that requires a training set. The design of the assay (antibodies, reagents) is based on scientific principles and previous research, not on learning from a specific dataset.

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

As there is no training set for this type of device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TECHLAB® E. HISTOLYTICA QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative detection of adhesin from Entamoeba histolytica in a single use cassette. It is intended for use with human fecal specimens from patients with diarrhea or dysentery as an aid in the diagnosis of E. histolytica gastrointestinal infection. Test results should be considered in conjunction with patient history. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE

The E. HISTOLYTICA QUIK CHEK™ test uses antibodies to adhesin. The device contains a Reaction Window with two vertical lines of immobilized antibodies. The test line ("T") contains monoclonal antibodies specific for E. histolytica adhesin. The control line ("C") contains antibodies to horseradish peroxidase (HRP). The Conjugate consists of polyclonal antibodies to E. histolytica adhesin coupled to horseradish peroxidase. To perform the test, the sample is added to a tube containing a mixture of Diluent and Conjugate. The diluted sample-conjugate mixture is added to the Sample Well and the device is allowed to incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes. During the incubation, E. histolytica adhesin in the samples bind to the antibodyperoxidase conjugate. The antigen-antibody complexes migrate through a filter pad to a membrane where they are captured by the immobilized antibodies in the Reaction Window is subsequently washed with Wash Buffer, and the test is developed with the addition of Substrate. After a 10 minute incubation period, the "T" reaction is examined visually for the appearance of a vertical blue line on the "T" side of the Reaction Window. A blue line indicates a positive test. A positive "C" reaction, indicated by a vertical blue line on the "C" side of the Reaction Window, monitors/confirms that the sample and reagents were added correctly, the reagents were active at the time of performing the assay, and that the sample migrated properly through the Membrane Device. It also confirms the reactivity of the other reagents associated with the assay.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

E. HISTOLYTICA QUIK CHEK™ Performance Study Summary

The E. HISTOLYTICA QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the qualitative detection of adhesin from Entamoeba histolytica in human fecal specimens.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The study compares the E. HISTOLYTICA QUIK CHEK™ test to a Composite Reference Method (CRM). While explicit "acceptance criteria" are not listed in terms of specific sensitivity/specificity thresholds, the overall performance against the CRM demonstrates the device's efficacy. The reported performance for prospective samples, while showing lower sensitivity, is accompanied by 100% specificity and PPV, indicating no false positives in this dataset. The retrospective data shows 100% sensitivity and specificity.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria (Implied) and Reported Device Performance

Note: The three false-negative results in the prospective study were PCR positive but antigen negative, suggesting a limitation in antigen detection for those specific samples, rather than a lack of E. histolytica presence.

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

• Total Sample Size: 851 fecal samples
  • Prospective Samples: 755
    • Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but collected from "3 independent sites," implying diverse geographical locations likely within the US given the FDA submission. The context suggests these were real-world clinical samples collected over time.
  • Retrospective Samples: 96
    • Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but referred to as "frozen (retrospective) specimens." Likely from archived clinical samples.

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

Not explicitly stated. The ground truth (Composite Reference Method) involves a combination of tests, not directly requiring individual expert interpretation per se, beyond the expertise required to perform and interpret the individual tests (Microscopy, FDA cleared multiplex NAAT test, Alternate PCR with sequencing).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method for the ground truth (Composite Reference Method - CRM) is clearly defined by an algorithm:

For cases where Microscopy and multiplex NAAT were both negative, no further PCR testing was performed, and the CRM result was deemed negative. This is a rule-based adjudication.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned as part of this submission. The study focuses on the standalone performance of the device against a Composite Reference Method.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was conducted. The E. HISTOLYTICA QUIK CHEK™ test was evaluated as an "algorithm only (without human-in-the-loop performance)" device, as it is an in vitro diagnostic which provides a visual qualitative result that is then interpreted by a user. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) presented in Tables 1 and 2 directly reflect this standalone capability, comparing its results directly to the CRM. The "visual" interpretation by a human is part of the intended use, but the analytical performance is solely dependent on the device's output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used was a Composite Reference Method (CRM). This CRM combined:

1. Microscopy
2. An FDA cleared multiplex NAAT test
3. Alternate PCR with sequencing

This approach aims to establish a more robust and accurate determination of the true E. histolytica infection status than any single method alone.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly state a separate "training set" sample size or a description of model training, as this device is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay (a chemical/biological test), not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires training data in the traditional sense. The document describes analytical and clinical validation, which ensures the device's inherent functional performance.

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

As noted above, this device is not an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set in the conventional sense. Therefore, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set does not apply here. The device's underlying principles are based on antibody-antigen reactions. Its design and development would have involved internal validation and optimization, but not "training" on a dataset in the way an AI model would.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test is an enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection of Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2) in a single test. It is intended for use with human fecal samples from patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of disease caused by Shiga Toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC). It may be used directly with human fecal specimens, or broth or plate cultures derived from fecal specimens. The test results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.

The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test uses antibodies to Stx1 and Stx2. The microassay wells supplied with the kit contain immobilized monoclonal antibodies against Stx1 and Stx2. The detecting antibody consists of a mixture of anti-Stx1 and anti-Stx2 polyclonal antibodies conjugated to horseradish peroxidase. In the assay, an aliquot of a fecal specimen or culture is emulsified in the Diluent and the diluted specimen is then transferred to the microassay well containing the detecting antibody. If Stx1 and/or Stx2 are present in the specimen, they will bind to the detecting antibody and to the immobilized monoclonal antibodies during the incubation phase. Any unbound material is removed during the washing steps. Following the addition of substrate, a color is detected due to the enzyme-antibody-antigen complexes that form in the presence of toxin.

The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test is an enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection of Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2). It is intended for use with human fecal samples from patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of disease caused by Shiga Toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC).

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Clinical Performance - Direct Fecal Testing:

  • Sample Size: 913 samples (899 fresh and 14 frozen specimens).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical performance was evaluated at 3 independent sites, suggesting a mix of retrospective and prospective clinical samples. The origin country is not specified.

• Clinical Performance - Broth Cultures:

  • Sample Size: 789 samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical performance was evaluated at 3 independent sites, suggesting a mix of retrospective and prospective clinical samples. The origin country is not specified.

• Reproducibility:

  • Sample Size: 11 fecal specimens (coded to prevent identification).
  • Data Provenance: Tested at 2 independent laboratories and on-site at TECHLAB®, Inc.

• Analytical Sensitivity (LOD):

  • Sample Size: Replicates of 20 for each toxin dilution in a negative fecal pool (direct fecal) or overnight GN broth culture (broth cultures).
  • Data Provenance: Laboratory controlled experiments using highly purified Stx1 and Stx2.

• Analytical Specificity (Cross Reactivity):

  • Sample Size: A panel of various bacterial and viral strains.
  • Data Provenance: Laboratory controlled experiments.

• Precision - Intra-Assay:

  • Sample Size: 6 positive fecal specimens and 6 negative fecal specimens, each assayed in replicates of eight.
  • Data Provenance: Laboratory controlled experiments.

• Precision - Inter-Assay:

  • Sample Size: 12 fecal specimens (six negative, two positive for Stx1, two positive for Stx2, and two positive for both Stx1 and Stx2).
  • Data Provenance: Laboratory controlled experiments.

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

The ground truth for the clinical performance studies (Direct Fecal Testing and Broth Cultures) was established using the Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay with neutralization. This is referred to as the "Clinical Reference Standard (Gold Standard)" in the document.

• Number of Experts: Not specified. The Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay is a laboratory-based method, and its interpretation would typically be performed by trained laboratory personnel.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. It's implied that trained microbiologists or laboratory technicians would perform and interpret the gold standard assay.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method for discrepancies between the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK test and the Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay. The results provided are direct comparisons. For example, in the direct fecal testing, 78 samples were positive by both methods, 1 was positive by SHIGA TOXIN CHEK and negative by the cytotoxin assay, and 0 were negative by SHIGA TOXIN CHEK and positive by the cytotoxin assay. This suggests that the cytotoxin assay was considered the definitive ground truth, and no further adjudication process is mentioned for conflicting 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

This information is not applicable to the SHIGA TOXIN CHEK device. This is an enzyme immunoassay for detecting toxins, not an imaging or diagnostic device that involves human "readers" in the context of interpretation that could be assisted by AI. The device directly produces a qualitative (positive/negative) result based on an enzymatic reaction and color change.

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

The SHIGA TOXIN CHEK is a standalone device in that its performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, correlation) are reported directly against the gold standard (Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay) without a human interpretation step that would then be assisted by the device. The device itself performs the detection. The results are read based on a colorimetric reaction, which is then interpreted as positive or negative. The "study" (clinical performance) focuses on the device's accuracy in identifying the presence of the toxins compared to the established gold standard.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for the clinical performance studies was the Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay with neutralization, described as the "Clinical Reference Standard (Gold Standard)".

• For analytical studies (LOD, cross-reactivity, precision), the ground truth was established through controlled laboratory experiments using known concentrations of purified toxins or specific bacterial/viral strains.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI models. This device is an immunoassay, and its development would typically involve optimization and validation rather than a distinct "training set" for an algorithm. The clinical and analytical studies serve as validation of the device's performance.

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

As there is no explicit "training set" described in the context of an AI/ML model for this immunoassay, this question is not applicable. The ground truth for the validation (test) sets was established using the Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay with neutralization.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SHIGA TOXIN QUIK CHEK test is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection and differentiation of Shiga toxin 1 (Stx1) and Shiga toxin 2 (Stx2) in a single test device. It is intended for use with human fecal samples from patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of disease caused by Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC). It may be used with fecal specimens, or broth or plate cultures derived from fecal specimens. The test results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history.

FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.

The SHIGA TOXIN QUIK CHEK test utilizes specific antibodies against Stx1 and Stx2. The Membrane Device contains a Reaction Window with three vertical lines of immobilized antibodies. The "1" test line contains monoclonal antibodies against Stx1. The control line ("C") is a dotted line that contains anti-horseradish peroxidase (HRP) antibodies. The "2" test line contains monoclonal antibodies against Stx2. The Conjugate consists of antibodies to Stx1 and Stx2 coupled to horseradish peroxidase. To perform the test, the sample is added to a tube containing a mixture of Diluent and Conjugate. The diluted sample-coniugate mixture is added to the Sample Well and the device is allowed to incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes. During the incubation, any Stx1 and/or Stx2 present in the sample binds to the antibodyperoxidase conjugates. The toxin-antibody-peroxidase complexes migrate through a filter pad to a membrane where they are captured by the immobilized Stx1 and Stx2 specific monoclonal antibodies in the test lines. The Reaction Window is subsequently washed with Wash Buffer, followed by the addition of Substrate. After a 10 minute incubation period, the Reaction Window is examined visually for the appearance of vertical blue lines on the "1" and "2" sides of the Reaction Window. A blue line on the "1" side of the Reaction Window is a positive result indicating the presence of Stx1. A blue line on the "2" side of the Reaction Window is a positive result indicating the presence of Stx2. A positive "C" reaction, indicated by a vertical dotted blue line under the "C" portion of the Reaction Window, confirms that the test is working properly, the procedure was followed, and the results are valid.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the SHIGA TOXIN QUIK CHEK device, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of specific percentages for sensitivity, specificity, and correlation for the clinical performance. Instead, it presents the achieved performance metrics as the outcome of the clinical study. However, the study's findings indicate the device's acceptable performance for its intended use. For the analytical sensitivity, the cutoff points are explicitly defined as the acceptance criteria.

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

• Direct Fecal Testing:
  • Sample Size: 887 specimens (873 fresh, 14 frozen).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the study was conducted at 3 independent sites, implying clinical samples collected from patients. It does not specify country of origin or whether samples were prospective or retrospective, only that age and sex information was available for 878 patients.
• Broth Cultures Testing:
  • Sample Size: 770 specimens (overnight broth cultures from fecal specimens).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but derived from fecal specimens.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., number of years of experience).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method for disagreements. The comparison was made against a single "gold standard" reference method.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance was not mentioned. This device is an in vitro diagnostic device for lab use, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Yes, the clinical performance study compares the SHIGA TOXIN QUIK CHEK device directly against the gold standard (Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay), indicating a standalone assessment of the device's performance. The results are based solely on the device's output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for establishing clinical performance was the Vero Cell Cytotoxin Assay (with neutralization), which is referred to as the "clinical reference standard (gold standard)".

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document describes the device's validation but does not mention a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI models. This is an in vitro diagnostic test, and its development typically involves internal analytical studies rather than a distinct training/test set split as seen in AI algorithms.

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

As there's no mention of a "training set" for an AI model, this question is not applicable in the context of this traditional in vitro diagnostic device. The device's analytical setup (e.g., cutoff points for LOD) was established empirically using purified toxins and negative fecal/broth pools, following established protocols (EP17A).

Ask a specific question about this device