Search Results

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

The GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous qualitative detection and differentiation of Giardia cyst antiqen and Cryptosporidium oocyst antigen in a single test device. It is intended for use with human fecal specimens from patients with gastrointestinal symptoms to aid in the diagnosis of Giardia and/or Cryptosporidium gastrointestinal infection. The test results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history.

The GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of Giardia cyst antigen and Cryptosporidium occyst antigen in a single test device. It is performed with a 25 to 30-minute total incubation time. The GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ test uses monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies to cell-surface antigens of the device contains a Reaction Window with three vertical lines of immobilized antibodies. The Giardia test line ("Giar") contains mouse monoclonal antibodies against Giardia. The Crypto test line ("Cryp") contains mouse monoclonal antibodies against Cryptosporidium. The control line ("C") is a dotted line that contains anti-horseradish peroxidase (HRP) antibodies. The Conjugate consists of polyclonal antibodies 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, cyst antigens in the sample bind the antibody-peroxidase conjuqates. The antigen-antibody-conjugate complexes migrate through a filter pad to a membrane where they are captured by the immobilized Giardia and/or Cryptosporidium-specific 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 is examined visually for the appearance of a vertical blue line on either side of the Reaction Window. A blue line indicates a positive "control" reaction, indicated by a vertical dotted blue line under the "C" portion of the Reaction Window. confirms that the test is working properly and the results are valid.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for a diagnostic test like this are typically defined by performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with a predicate device or gold standard. The reported performance for the GIARDIA/CRYPTOSPORIDIUM QUIK CHEK™ test against the Microscopy - IFA gold standard is as follows:

The reported performance against Commercial ELISA Predicate Devices is as follows:

The regulatory acceptance of the device (K103673) by the FDA suggests that these reported performance metrics met their criteria for substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

Study Information

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

   • Test set for comparison to Microscopy (IFA): N = 791 (combined from Study Sites #1 and #3). This included 220 fresh, 140 frozen, 216 preserved-formalin, and 215 preserved-SAF fecal specimens.
   • Test set for comparison to Commercial ELISAs (predicate devices): N = 849 (combined from Study Sites #1 and #2). This included 349 fresh, 322 frozen, 36 preserved-formalin, and 142 preserved-SAF fecal specimens.
   • Data Provenance: The studies were conducted at "3 geographically diverse sites" within the US. The data is prospective in the sense that the test samples were collected and then tested with the new device, but the text doesn't specify if these were newly collected for the study or a collection of existing samples. Given the various preservation methods, it's likely a mix of prospective collection and retrospective analysis of stored samples.

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

   • The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") used to establish the ground truth for the clinical specimens. It refers to "Microscopy - IFA (considered the gold standard)" and "two commercially available ELISAs (predicate devices)" as the comparators, implying the expertise lies in the performance of those established methods.

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

   • The document does not specify an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 for resolving discrepancies in the test set. The comparisons are presented as direct comparisons between the new device's results and the results from the gold standard/predicate devices.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not reported. This device is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay (a lab test), not an AI-assisted imaging device that would involve human readers.

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

   • Yes, this was a standalone performance study of the diagnostic device itself. The "device performance" metrics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) directly reflect the algorithm's (immunoassay's) ability to detect the antigens in the samples. There is no human-in-the-loop scenario described for the device's main function, as it's a qualitative visual membrane assay. The reading of the lines by a technician would be part of the standard operation of this type of IVD, but the fundamental detection is by the assay itself.

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

   • For clinical performance, the primary ground truth reference was Microscopy - IFA (Immunofluorescence Assay), which is explicitly stated as "considered the gold standard" for detecting Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts in fecal specimens.
   • Additionally, two commercially available ELISA predicate devices were used as comparators for agreement in other parts of the study.
   • For analytical sensitivity (LOD) and cross-reactivity studies, the ground truth involved purified Giardia cysts or Cryptosporidium oocysts quantified by immunofluorescent antibody microscopy (IFA) or documented positive specimens for other organisms by microscopy.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This is a traditional immunoassay. Therefore, there's no training set as understood in AI/ML development. The development of the assay (e.g., antibody selection, reagent concentrations) would be an iterative process, but not in the "training set" paradigm.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no specific "training set" mentioned in the context of an AI/ML algorithm for this immunoassay device. The assay development would rely on internal validation and optimization against known positive and negative samples, similar to how the analytical studies for sensitivity and cross-reactivity were performed.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LEUKO EZ VUE™ test is an immunochromatographic test for the qualitative detection of elevated levels of fecal lactoferrin, a marker for fecal leukocytes and an indicator of intestinal inflammation. The LEUKO EZ VUE™ test detects lactoferrin in liquid, semi-solid, and solid fecal specimens. A positive test result indicates an increased level of fecal lactoferrin and warrants additional testing. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.

The LEUKO EZ VUE™ test is a 10 minute immunochromatographic device for the detection of elevated levels of lactoferrin, a marker for fecal leukocytes and an indicator of intestinal inflammation. The test utilizes the same polyclonal antibodies against human lactoferrin as our previously cleared LEUKO-TEST assay. The polyclonal antibodies to human lactoferrin are immobilized on nitrocellulose and the conjugate consists of the same antibodies linked to colloidal gold particles. The membrane cassette contains two stripes of immobilized antibodies. One stripe contains anti-lactoferrin antibodies. The other, representing a control stripe, contains anti-IgG antibodies. The diluted sample and gold conjugate migrate by capillary action when the sample is added to the well. If elevated lactoferrin is present in the sample, gold conjugate-lactoferrin complexes form and are captured by the immobilized anti-lactoferrin antibodies in the stripe. The lactoferrin-conjugate-antibody complexes appear as a single red line in the test portion of the Results window. In the control stripe, conjugate binds to the immobilized anti-IgG antibodies, demonstrating correct migration of the sample and conjugate along the membrane. The conjugate-anti-IgG antibodies appear as a single red line in the control portion of the Results window.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the LEUKO EZ VUE™ device, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the LEUKO EZ VUE™ were based on its agreement with the predicate device, LEUKO-TEST.

Study Information

This study evaluated the performance of the LEUKO EZ VUE™ test against the predicate LEUKO-TEST in clinical studies.

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

   • Sample Size: 375 specimens
   • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It indicates "clinical studies" without further detail on the nature (retrospective or prospective) of the data collection for these specific comparative studies.

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

   • The "ground truth" for this study was established using the results of the LEUKO-TEST (K931241/A1), which is a previously cleared latex agglutination test. The document does not mention the use of experts to establish a separate ground truth or to interpret the LEUKO-TEST results for the purpose of this comparative study.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable. The study compares the LEUKO EZ VUE™ to the LEUKO-TEST directly, rather than against an expert-adjudicated ground truth.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a rapid in-vitro diagnostic test, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool requiring human interpretation. The output is a visual presence of a red line.

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

   • Yes, the LEUKO EZ VUE™ test's performance was evaluated as a standalone device by comparing its results directly to the LEUKO-TEST results. It is an immunochromatographic device that provides a visual reading ("red line in the test portion of the Results window").

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • The ground truth for comparison was the results obtained from the LEUKO-TEST (K931241/A1).

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" or its size. As this is a performance comparison of an in-vitro diagnostic device against a predicate, typical machine learning training set paradigms are not directly applicable in the same way. The study focuses on evaluating the device's performance on a set of clinical samples.

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

   • Not applicable, as a distinct "training set" with established ground truth, in the context of machine learning, is not described for this type of IVD performance study. The performance evaluation samples were compared against the results of the predicate LEUKO-TEST.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ASCA-CHEK test is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of human anti-S. cerevisiae antibodies (ASCA) in feces and serum. The test result is used as an aid in the diagnosis of Crohn's disease in combination with clinical and other laboratory findings. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.

The ASCA-CHEK test is an ELISA for the measurement of human anti-S. cerevisiae antibodies in feces and serum as an indicator of Crohn's disease in combination with other clinical and laboratory findings. The assay utilizes antigens of S. cerevisiae for capture and a polyvalent anti-human immunoglobulin conjugate. For feces, a specimen dilution of 1:10 and an OD 450 cut-off ≥0.150 or OD450620 ≥0.110 are used for the analysis. For serum, a specimen dilution of 1:1000 and an OD450 cut-off ≥0.110 or OD450620 ≥0.080 are used for the analysis. When human ASCA is present in fecal or serum specimens, the specific immunoglobulins bind to the S. cerevisiae antigens that are immobilized in the test well. Following this binding step, the polyvalent anti-human horseradish peroxidase (HRP) conjugate binds to the ASCA and reacts with the substrate to produce a positive result. The measurement of fecal and serum ASCA is an indicator of Crohn's disease within the setting of differentiating Crohn's disease from ulcerative colitis and IBS. This diagnostic method offers a simple to perform assay that may be used with either fecal or serum specimens.

Here's a breakdown of the ASCA-CHEK device's acceptance criteria and the study that supports it, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum sensitivity, specificity, or agreement percentages) that the device had to meet to be approved. Instead, it presents the performance data and then asserts that, based on these findings, the device is substantially equivalent. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" inferred here are based on the reported "substantial equivalence" claim relative to the predicate devices.

*Note: The document references "Statistical Guidance on Reporting Results from Studies Evaluating Diagnostic" for these agreement percentages, suggesting these values were deemed acceptable for demonstrating equivalence.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set:

  • All Patients plus Controls: N = 351 (for ASCA-CHEK vs Disease)
  • Adult Patients plus Controls: N = 215 (for ASCA-CHEK vs Disease)
  • Pediatric Patients plus Controls: N = 136 (for ASCA-CHEK vs Disease)
  • Comparison to QUANTA Lite™ ASCA (overlapping groups): N = 274 (All), N = 138 (Adult), N = 136 (Pediatric)

• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. It refers to "Site: Pediatric Patients plus Controls" and "Site: Adult Patients plus Controls," implying data collection from specific clinical locations, but further details are not provided.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth (diagnosis of Crohn's disease or control status). The "Disease" categorization likely stems from standard clinical diagnostic criteria and specialist evaluation, but the specifics are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method

The document does not describe any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for establishing the ground truth of the test set.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (ELISA), not an imaging or interpretation-based diagnostic that would typically involve multiple human readers. The study compares the performance of the new device (ASCA-CHEK) against the known disease state and against predicate ELISA devices.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "ASCA-CHEK vs Disease" rows in the performance table represent the standalone performance of the algorithm (the ASCA-CHEK ELISA) in detecting true positive and true negative cases based on a clinical diagnosis of the disease or healthy control status.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used is "Disease" status, which, in the context of diagnosing Crohn's disease, would typically be established by a combination of clinical findings, endoscopy, imaging, histology (pathology), and other laboratory tests. The document indicates the ASCA-CHEK test result is "an aid in the diagnosis of Crohn's disease in combination with clinical and other laboratory findings," implying that there's a reference standard (the "Disease" column) against which the device's output is compared. It is not explicitly stated if it was expert consensus, pathology alone, or outcomes data, but likely a clinical diagnosis based on established medical criteria.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information on the sample size for a training set. This is typical for a 510(k) submission where the primary focus is on demonstrating clinical performance and substantial equivalence of the finished device rather than detailing model development or training data. Being an ELISA, it might not have a "training set" in the sense of a machine learning algorithm.

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

As no training set is described, this information is not provided in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device