Search Results

Creatinine Enzymatic Reagent Kit is a device which is intended for measurement of creatinine level in human serum, in vitro diagnostic use only. Test results may provide information regarding the status of kidney function and the diagnosis of renal diseases, and also serve as a component of several calculations for determination of creatinine clearance or glomerular filtration rate (GFR).

Creatinine Enzymatic Reagent Kit is a dual reagent one contains Good's buffer, creatine amidinohydrolase, sarcosine oxidase and ESPMT (3-(N-Ethyl-3methylanilino) propanesulfonic acid sodium salt). Reagent two contains Good's buffer, creatinine amidohydrolase, Peroxidase and 4-aminoantipyrine.

The provided text describes the performance characteristics and acceptance criteria for the Teco Creatinine Enzymatic Reagent Kit, but it does not detail a study involving human readers or AI assistance. The device is a diagnostic test kit, not an AI-powered diagnostic system requiring human interpretation.

Therefore, questions related to human reader performance, AI assistance, multi-reader multi-case studies, and human interpretation of ground truth are not applicable to this document. The information provided focuses solely on the analytical performance of the diagnostic reagent kit.

Here's the breakdown of the information that is applicable from your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly list acceptance criteria in a dedicated table, but it presents performance data against established guidelines (CLSI standards) and compares it to a predicate device. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by meeting CLSI standards and demonstrating comparable performance to the predicate.

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

• Precision/Reproducibility:
  • Sample Size: Three serum pools. For intra-assay precision, each of the three pools was assayed for 20 operating days, twice per day, in triplicates (3 pools * 20 days * 2 runs/day * 3 replicates/run = 360 measurements per pool per reagent lot, for two reagent lots).
  • Data Provenance: "Patient serum pools" are mentioned. The specific country of origin is not stated, but the company is US-based (Anaheim, CA), suggesting data may be from the US or procured globally for clinical lab use. The studies are prospective in nature, as they involve actively "assaying samples."
• Linearity/Assay Reportable Range:
  • Sample Size: Eleven samples, assayed in duplicates for each reagent lot.
  • Data Provenance: "Patient serum pools." Prospective.
• Detection Limit (LoB, LoD, LoQ):
  • LoB: Four diluted real pooled serum samples. Fifteen replicates for each sample, using two reagent lots (4 samples * 15 replicates * 2 lots = 120 measurements).
  • LoD: Four diluted serum samples (100x, 50x, 33x, 25x). Fifteen times for each sample (4 samples * 15 replicates = 60 measurements).
  • LoQ: Four low concentration samples from native serum sample pools. Fifteen times each (4 samples * 15 replicates = 60 measurements).
  • Data Provenance: "real pooled serum samples," "native serum sample pools." Prospective.
• Analytical Specificity:
  • Sample Size: Samples with increasing amounts of potential interferents were tested in triplicate. Two different clinically relevant concentrations of creatinine (1.50 and 5.00 mg/dL) were used. The number of interferents tested is listed as 15. So, for each interferent, at least (2 creatinine conc * X interferent conc * 3 replicates) measurements were done.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but likely controlled laboratory samples. Prospective.
• Method Comparison:
  • Sample Size: 98 serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: "Serum samples." Not explicitly stated if patient samples or contrived. Given the context of comparing to a predicate, historical patient samples are likely. The study is presented as a comparison, which implies a retrospective analysis against existing methods.
• Expected Values/Reference Interval:
  • Sample Size: 20 healthy male donors and 20 healthy female donors (total 40 donors).
  • Data Provenance: Human serum samples from healthy donors (age 20-65). Prospective study.

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

Not applicable as this is a diagnostic reagent kit. "Ground truth" is established by the analytical method itself (e.g., reference method for method comparison studies, or a gold standard for traceability) and the physiological state of the samples (e.g., healthy donors, patient pools). There are no human experts interpreting images or signals to establish ground truth in the way described for AI/human-in-the-loop systems.

The creatinine calibrator values are traceable to NIST reference material (SRM 967), which serves as a metrological ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. This device does not involve human interpretation or adjudication for its 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

Not applicable. No human readers or AI assistance are involved with this diagnostic kit.

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

Yes, in a sense, the entire performance study is a "standalone" assessment of the reagent kit's analytical performance (analogous to an "algorithm only" performance for an AI system), as it measures the kit's ability to accurately quantify creatinine without human interpretative input influencing the result. The device is purely an in vitro diagnostic reagent kit.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Reference method/Predicate device: For method comparison, the "Stanbio Creatinine LiquiColor test system" serves as the comparative reference.
• NIST Reference Material (SRM 967): For traceability of calibrator values.
• CLSI guidelines: For various analytical performance characteristics (precision, linearity, detection limits, specificity).
• Established biological ranges/clinical literature: For expected values/reference intervals (e.g., "Larsen K. Clin Chem Acta 41:209, 1972").
• Known concentrations: For studies like linearity, detection limits, and analytical specificity, samples are prepared with known concentrations of analyte or interferents.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a chemical reagent kit, not a machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set" in the context of data used for algorithm development. Its development would involve chemical optimization and formulation rather than data-driven training.

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

Not applicable (no training set for this type of device).

Ask a specific question about this device

Teco Carbon Dioxide Reagent Set is a device which is intended for measurement of Carbon Dioxide level in human serum, in vitro diagnostic use only. Test results may provide information regarding the status in the assessment of acid-base balance of metabolic alkalosis or respiratory acidosis.

Teco Carbon Dioxide Reagent Set is a single reagent kit. Reagent contains Good's buffer, phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP), phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC), malate dehydrogenase (MDH), magnesium ions, NADH analog, nonreactive stabilizer, preservative, and Buffer. Approximately 90% of carbon dioxide present in serum is in the form of bicarbonate. The measurement of bicarbonate is useful in the assessment of disturbances of acid-base balance resulting from metabolic or respiratory causes.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Teco Carbon Dioxide Reagent Set, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

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

   • Accuracy/Method Comparison: 176 patient serum samples.
   • Linearity: Undisclosed number of unaltered human serum samples (prepared by mixing a diluted patient serum sample (2 mmol/L) and a spiked patient serum sample (64 mmol/L) to obtain 11 different concentrations).
   • Precision/Reproducibility: Unaltered human serums spiked with carbon dioxide concentrations and commercial serum-based controls.
   • Detection Limit (LoB, LoD, LoQ):
     • LoB: One artificial serum base matrix pool.
     • LoD: Four (4) separate pools.
     • LoQ: Five (5) separate pools.
   • Analytical Specificity: Two (2) different concentrations of sodium bicarbonate (20 mmol/L and 35 mmol/L) human serum samples. Pooled human serum samples with added potential interferents.
   • Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the patient samples. All studies appear to be prospective as they were conducted as part of the device's validation.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   This document describes an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) reagent set. For such devices, ground truth is typically established by reference methods or established analytical techniques, not by human expert interpretation in the way a diagnostic imaging AI might be evaluated. Therefore, no information is provided regarding human experts for establishing ground truth.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:
   Not applicable to an IVD reagent set. Ground truth is determined analytically.

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 an IVD reagent set, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Yes, all performance studies described are for the standalone Teco Carbon Dioxide Reagent Set. There is no human-in-the-loop component mentioned. The device directly measures carbon dioxide levels.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   The ground truth for this device's performance studies is established by:

   • Reference methods and quantitative analysis: This is evident in the comparison to a predicate device (Pointe Scientific Inc., Carbon Dioxide Reagent) and the use of standards (NIST SRM 351 traceable CO2 standard).
   • Known concentrations: For linearity, precision, and detection limit studies, samples were prepared with known or measured concentrations of carbon dioxide.
   • Spiked samples: Used for linearity and precision to cover a range of concentrations.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   Not applicable. This is an IVD reagent set, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set." Its function is based on established enzymatic reactions, not learned patterns from data.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   Not applicable, as there is no "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device

The Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System consists of the Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Analyzer and the Teco Diagnostics Urine Reagent (URS-10) Strips. The Uritek TC-201 urine analyzer is an automated, bench top instrument which is intended for point-of-care, in vitro diagnostic use only and is intended to be used together with the Teco Diagnostics Urine Reagent (URS-10) Strips as a system for semi-quantitative detection of Glucose, Bilirubin, Ketone, Specific Gravity, Blood, pH, Protein, Urobilinogen, Nitrite and Leukocytes in urine. These measurements are used to aid in the diagnosis of metabolic disorders, kidney function anomalies, urinary tract infections and liver function.

The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer (TC-201) is a portable easy to use instrument which reads Teco Diagnostics' Urine Reagent (URS-10) Strips for testing in the clinical laboratory. The analyzer can determine the intensity of different colors on the reagent strip test area. It does this by irradiating the test area with light and detecting the reflectance of different wavelengths using photodiode. Results are calculated by a reflection rate which is a percentage of the total reflectance of the testing wavelength and are printed automatically. The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer reports semi-quantitative assays for Glucose, Bilirubin, Ketone, Specific Gravity, Blood, pH, Protein, Urobilinogen, Nitrite and Leukocytes in urine. The analyzer features a display, internal printer, a serial computer interface and an electrical outlet. Communication between the operator and the analyzer is made through the display using the user interface touch screen on the front surface of the instrument. Reagent strip results are automatically displayed on the screen in one minute. A printed hardcopy can also be created either from the results screen or recalled from memory. The Urine Reagent Strips (URS-10) for Urinalysis are firm plastic strips to which ten different reagent pads are affixed. The reagent pad areas are bibulous material saturated with chemically active substances, then dried and affixed to the plastic strip with double-sided adhesive. The Teco Urine Reagent (URS-10) Strips provide tests for the semi-quantitative determination of Glucose, Bilirubin, Ketone, Specific Gravity, Blood, pH, Protein, Urobilinogen, Nitrite, and Leukocytes in urine.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study results for the Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criterion for most analytes in the precision studies (both in-house and Point-of-Care) was 100% agreement within ±1 color block. For the comparative studies, the acceptance criteria were also based on agreement within and outside of specified color blocks. For Specific Gravity, the acceptance criteria was +/- 0.005.

Here's a summary table combining the reported performance from various studies:

Note: "L1", "L2", "L3" refer to Level I (High), Level II (Low), and Level III (Negative/Trace) control solutions, respectively. "N" indicates the number of tests performed.

Additional Information:

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

• Precision Studies (In-house):
  • Within-Run: 180 strips per control level (20 strips x 3 strip lots x 1 day x 3operators/analyzers).
  • Run-to-Run: 120 strips per control level (3 strips x 2 runs x 10 days x 2 operators/analyzers/strip lots).
  • Data Provenance: In-house studies using commercially available urine control solutions. The country of origin of the data is not explicitly stated but implied to be from the manufacturer's facility.
• Precision Studies (Point-of-Care):
  • Sample Size: 40 tests per sample (duplicates per run, two runs per day for 10 days). Combined across 3 POC sites, the total for each control level (L1, L2, L3) was 120 (40 tests x 3 sites).
  • Data Provenance: Prospective, from three Point-of-Care (POC) sites: Clinica Medica Del Sagrado Corazon (Anaheim, CA), Clinica Medica San Miquel (Santa Ana, CA), and Artritis & Osteoporosis Center (Edinburg, TX). This data is from the USA.
• Method Comparison Study:
  • Sample Size: A total of 509 urine specimens. This comprised:
    • At least 115 unaltered patient samples per site from 3 POC sites (total > 345).
    • Additional contrived samples (10% of total samples).
    • 91 clinical samples from POC Site I and Site II.
    • A separate study at Site I with 26 patient urine samples prescreened at pH ≥ 8.0.
  • Data Provenance: Prospective, from three Point-of-Care (POC) sites in the USA. Samples were a mix of unaltered patient samples and contrived samples.

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

• Precision Studies: Ground truth was established by the expected ranges of commercially available urine control solutions (HYCOR Biomedical), which have known target analyte concentrations confirmed by their package inserts and certificates of analysis. No external human experts are explicitly mentioned for these studies beyond the internal operators.
• Method Comparison Study: The ground truth for the method comparison study was established by the predicate device, the Siemens Clinitek Status+ Urine Analyzer (using Clinitek Multistix 10 SG Strips). This is a comparison between two devices, not a comparison against a clinical expert consensus or pathology.
• Linearity/Assay Reportable Range: For pH, a pH meter was used to confirm results. For specific gravity, a clinical, handheld refractometer was used. These serve as the "ground truth" or reference methods for these specific parameters. Three operators performed these measurements.

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

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly described in the provided text for most studies. The precision studies rely on the expected values of control solutions. The method comparison study compares the Uritek TC-201 directly against the predicate device; discrepancies are noted but a formal multi-expert adjudication process is not detailed. For the precision studies, results were considered "within the expected results +/- one color block"; however, the process for resolving disagreements or establishing a definitive ground truth in cases of initial disagreement is not specified beyond relying on the control solution's stated values.

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 document describes a clinical chemistry test system for urine analysis, which is an automated instrument reading reagent strips. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or human-in-the-loop system. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not applicable and was not performed.

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

• The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer is described as an automated, bench top instrument that "reads Teco Diagnostics' Urine Reagent (URS-10) Strips". It operates by "irradiating the test area with light and detecting the reflectance of different wavelengths using photodiode" and "Results are calculated by a reflection rate... and are printed automatically." This indicates that the device operates in a standalone (algorithm only) manner for interpreting the reagent strips. Human involvement is primarily in sample preparation and loading, and interpreting the printed results.

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

• Precision Studies: Ground truth was established by the expected ranges of commercially available urine control solutions with confirmed analyte concentrations.
• Linearity/Assay Reportable Range Study: For pH, a pH meter was the ground truth. For Specific Gravity, a clinical, handheld refractometer was the ground truth.
• Method Comparison Study: The ground truth was the predicate device's measurements (Siemens Clinitek Status+ Urine Analyzer).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The document describes performance testing for a diagnostic device, not the development or training of a machine learning model. Therefore, a "training set" in the context of AI/ML is not applicable here. The studies described are for verification and validation of the device's analytical performance against established standards and a predicate device.

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

• As mentioned above, there is no "training set" in the context of AI/ML for this device. The ground truth for the various performance studies (precision, linearity, method comparison) was established using commercially available control solutions with known values, reference instruments (pH meter, refractometer), and comparison to a legally marketed predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System consists of Urine Analyzer and Urine Microalbumin Creatinine Strips. The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer is an automated, bench top instrument which is intended for prescription, in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for use only at Point-of-Care (POC) sites by professionals. The device is intended to be used together with the Urine Microalbumin Creatinine (UAC) Strips as a system for the semiquantitative detection of Microalbumin and Creatinine and determination of the albumin to creatinine ratio in urine. Test results may be used in screening urine specimens for microalbuminuria as an aid in the detection of patients at risk for developing kidney damage.

Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System consists of Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer and Urine Microalbumin Creatinine Strips. The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer (TC-201) is a portable easy to use instrument which reads Teco Diagnostics' Urine Microalbumin Creatinine (UAC) Strips for testing in the clinical laboratory. The analyzer can determine the intensity of different colors on the reagent strip test area. It does this by irradiating the test area with light and detecting the reflectance of different wavelengths using photodiode. Results are calculated by a reflection rate which is a percentage of the total reflectance of the testing wavelength and are printed automatically.

The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer reports semi-quantitative assays for microalbumin and creatinine. Reagent strip results are automatically displayed on the screen in one minute. A printed hardcopy can also be created either from the results screen or recalled from memory. The analyzer features a display, internal printer, a serial computer interface and an electrical outlet. Communication between the operator and the analyzer is made through the display using the user interface touch screen on the front surface of the instrument.

The Urine Microalbumin Creatinine (UAC) Strips are urine test strips of which microalbumin and creatinine reagent pad are affixed onto the firm plastic strips. The reagent pad areas are bibulous material saturated with chemically active substances, then dried and affixed to the plastic strip with double-sided adhesive. UAC strips provide tests for the semi-quantitative detection of Microalbumin (low concentration of Albumin) and Creatinine and determination of the Albumin to Creatinine ratio (A : C) in urine.

The document describes the Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System and its performance evaluation to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

The document provides the following comparison study results for the Uritek TC-201 Urine Chemistry Test System against a predicate device:

Note: The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in numerical form. The conclusion states that "product specifications are met" and that the data "supports the substantial equivalence to the predicate device." Therefore, the reported performance metrics are implicitly presented as meeting the unstated acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: A total of 518 urine specimens were analyzed in the comparison study.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It indicates the study was conducted at "three Point-of-Care sites," implying real-world clinical samples. While not explicitly stated as retrospective or prospective, the nature of a comparison study using collected specimens for analysis often points to a prospective collection for the study's purpose, though it cannot be definitively confirmed from the provided text.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications to establish the ground truth for the test set. The comparison study was conducted against a "predicate device" (Clinitek Status Plus Analyzer and Siemens Reagent Strips for Urinalysis), which would have its own established accuracy and is used as the reference standard in this context.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set. The comparison was primarily made against the results from the predicate device.

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

• MRMC Study: No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done.
• Effect Size of Human Readers with/without AI: Not applicable, as this device is an automated urinalysis system for chemical analysis, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation system that involves human readers improving with AI.

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

Yes, the analytical performance and comparison studies described appear to be evaluations of the "algorithm only" or the device's automated performance (Urine Analyzer and Urine Microalbumin Creatinine Strips as a system). The Uritek TC-201 Urine Analyzer is an "automated, bench top instrument." The comparison study evaluates the system's performance in generating results compared to the predicate device.

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

The ground truth for the comparison study was established by the predicate device (Clinitek Status Plus Analyzer and Siemens Reagent Strips for Urinalysis). The study compares the results from the Uritek TC-201 system to those obtained from the predicate device on the same urine specimens.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for a training set. The provided information pertains to verification, validation, and a comparison study for the device's analytical performance. As a medical device for chemical analysis, training sets in the typical machine learning sense might not be directly applicable in the same way as for AI/ML-based diagnostic algorithms. Device calibration and internal validation would involve specific samples, but these are not termed "training sets" in this context.

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

Since no specific "training set" is described for an AI/ML context, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable or provided. For the device itself, the "self-calibration with the white area located at the back of the test strip bed" is mentioned, which serves a calibration function.

Ask a specific question about this device