Search Results

The Thermo Electron CT OIA assay is an Optical ImmunoAssay (OIA) test for the rapid, qualitative detection of chlamydial antigen from female endocervical swab specimens. This test is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aid in identifying the presence of Chlamydia trachomatis antigen. The assay is intended for in vitro diagnostic use with symptomatic females in populations at risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

CT OIA test results are presumptive evidence for either the presence or absence of C. trachomatis. Definitive laboratory evidence for the presence/ absence of C. trachomatis would need additional testing. CT OIA test results should not preclude empiric treatment of women with overt symptoms of PID. Performance for use in asymptomatic male and female populations has not been established.

The CT OIA test involves the qualitative extraction of antigen specific to the Chlamydia genus. The Optical ImmunoAssay technology enables the direct visual detection of a physical change in the optical thickness of molecular thin films. This change is a result of antigen-antibody binding on an optical surface (silicon wafer). When an extracted specimen is placed directly on the optical surface, the immobilized specific antibodies capture the antigen. After washing, the substrate is added, increasing the thickness (mass enhancement) of the molecular thin film. This change in thickness alters the reflected light path and is visually perceived as a color change. Slight changes in optical thickness produce a distinct, visible color change. A positive result appears as a purple spot on the predominant gold background. When antigen is not present in the specimen, no binding takes place. Therefore, the optical thickness remains unchanged and the surface retains the original gold color indicating a negative result.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Thermo Flectron CT OIA 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 for clinical performance (e.g., "Sensitivity must be >= X%, Specificity must be >= Y%"). Instead, it reports the observed performance characteristics. Given this, the table will present the key performance metrics as reported in the study:

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

• Sample Size for Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity: 767 symptomatic female patients were included in the final analysis. (Initially, 885 female patients were enrolled, but 118 were excluded).
• Sample Size for Reproducibility: Reproducibility testing was performed on three blinded panels, though the exact number of individual samples within these panels isn't specified (71/81 successful tests are mentioned, suggesting 81 blinded samples).
• Data Provenance: The study was a "multicenter study at four geographically diverse clinical sites" located in the Northwest, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions of the United States. It was a prospective study as patients were enrolled and tested.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing the ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly mention an adjudication method. For the clinical sensitivity and specificity study, the CT OIA test was compared to a "commercially available LCx nucleic acid amplification test for C. trachomatis" as the primary reference method. "Secondary confirmation testing of positive OIA was done by a commercially available PCR test." This suggests a two-step approach for ground truth, but not an adjudication process among human readers.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. The study focuses on the standalone performance of the device compared to a reference method, not on how human readers' performance improves with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

Yes, a standalone study was conducted. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) reported are for the CT OIA assay itself, in comparison to a reference method (LCx and PCR), without human interpretation as part of the primary device output. The device itself is an "Optical ImmunoAssay technology [that] enables the direct visual detection of a physical change in the optical thickness... visually perceived as a color change. A positive result appears as a purple spot on the predominant gold background." While a human observes this color change, the reported performance is for the diagnostic test's ability to accurately reflect the presence of the antigen, not for a human's ability to interpret an image provided by an AI.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth for the clinical sensitivity and specificity study was a commercially available LCx Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) for C. trachomatis. Positive OIA results were also subject to secondary confirmation testing by a commercially available PCR test.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a separate "training set" or "training data" in the context of developing the CT OIA assay. This assay is a diagnostic test based on Optical ImmunoAssay technology, likely developed and validated through laboratory experimentation and calibration rather than machine learning on a large dataset. Therefore, the concept of a training set for an algorithm is not applicable here.

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

As noted above, the concept of a training set as understood in AI/ML is not applicable. The device's development would involve establishing its analytical performance characteristics (e.g., detection limits, cross-reactivity) through laboratory studies using characterized samples, rather than establishing "ground truth" for a training set in a clinical context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Thermo BioStar® GC OIA assay is an Optical ImmunoAssay test for the rapid qualitative detection of gonococcal antigen (L7/L12 ribosomal protein) in female endocervical swab and male urine specimens. Urine specimens must be prepared using an accessory Urine Filtration Device (UFD) for concentration and extraction. This test is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aid in identifying the presence of Neisseria gonorrhoeae antigen. The assay is intended for use with symptomatic females and males, in populations at risk for sexually transmitted diseases.

The GC OIA test involves the qualitative extraction and detection of an antigen unique to N. gonorrhoeae. The Optical ImmunoAssay technology enables the direct visual detection of a physical change in the optical thickness of molecular thin films. This change is a result of antigen-antibody binding on an optical surface (silicon wafer). When an extracted specimen is placed directly on the optical surface, the immobilized specific antibodies capture the antibody-enzyme conjugate is then added for form an immune complex "sandwich" of immobilized antibody-sample-antibody HRP on the surface. After washing, the substrate is added, increasing the thickness (mass enhancement) of the molecular thin film. This change in thickness alters the reflected light path and is visually perceived as a color change. Slight changes in optical thickness produce a distinct, visible color change. A positive result appears as a purple spot on the predominant gold background. When antigen is not present in the specimen, no binding takes place. Therefore, the optical thickness remains unchanged and the surface retains the original gold color indicating a negative result.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the GC OIA® device, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for sensitivity, specificity, or reproducibility. The reported performance is presented as the outcome of the clinical study, implying these values were deemed acceptable for substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: A total of 904 valid results were obtained from symptomatic patient specimens.
• Data Provenance: The study was a "multicenter study" conducted at "four geographically diverse clinical sites." The data is prospective as it was collected from "symptomatic patient specimens" for the purpose of the study.

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

This information is not provided in the given text. It mentions a "commercial culture media, with secondary confirmation testing by LCR (Ligase Chain Reaction)" as the comparison method for establishing ground truth, but does not detail the involvement or qualifications of human experts in this process.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the given text. The ground truth was established by "commercial culture media, with secondary confirmation testing by LCR," but the specific adjudication method if there were discrepancies between these methods or if human experts were involved in adjudication is not described.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study compared the device with a "historical reference method" (Neisseria gonorrhoeae culture) and used secondary confirmation by LCR, not human readers with and without AI assistance.

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

Yes, a standalone study was done. The performance data (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) are reported for the GC OIA® assay itself, functioning without human interpretation affecting the result. The device is described as enabling "direct visual detection of a physical change...visually perceived as a color change," where a "positive result appears as a purple spot." This implies the human component is simply observing the color change, not interpreting complex images or performing diagnostic reasoning.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was a combination of:

• Culture: "Commercial culture media" was the primary comparison method.
• Molecular Confirmation: "Secondary confirmation testing by LCR (Ligase Chain Reaction)" was used. This indicates a robust ground truth standard, likely aiming to resolve ambiguous culture results or provide higher certainty.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The sample size for the training set is not explicitly stated in the provided text. The document describes clinical studies that established "performance characteristics," implying these involved a test set. There's no separate mention of a distinct training set.

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

Since a separate training set is not explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not provided. If the reported clinical study data involved an internal training phase, the ground truth would presumably have been established similarly to the test set (culture with LCR confirmation).

Ask a specific question about this device

The Thermo BioStar™ FLU OIA* A/B assay is an Optical ImmunoAssay test for the qualitative, rapid detection of influenza A and B viral antigens (nucleoproteins) extracted from nasal aspirate, nasopharyngeal swab, throat swab, and sputum specimens. This test is intended for in vitro diagnostic use to aid in the differential diagnosis of influenza A and B viral infections. The FLU OIA A/B test is not intended for detection of influenza C. Negative test results should be confirmed by cell culture.

The FLU OIA A/B test involves the extraction and detection of a protein antigen unique to influenza A or B (nucleoprotein). The Optical ImmunoAssay technology enables the direct visual detection of a physical change in the optical thickness of molecular thin films. This change is a result of antigen-antibody binding on an optical surface (silicon wafer). When an extracted specimen is placed directly on the optical surface, the immobilized specific antibodies capture the antigen. After washing, the substrate is added, increasing the thickness (mass enhancement) of the molecular thin film. This change in thickness alters the reflected light path and is visually perceived as a color change. Slight changes in optical thickness produce a distinct, visible color change. A positive result appears as a purple spot on the predominant gold background. When antigen is not present in the specimen, no binding takes place. Therefore, the optical thickness remains unchanged and the surface retains the original gold color indicating a negative result.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the FLU OIA® A/B device, structured according to your requested information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for FLU OIA® A/B

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria values for sensitivity or agreement. The reported device performance is presented as the study outcome without direct comparison to a specified target. However, the FDA's clearance of the device implies these performance metrics were deemed acceptable.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Set

• Sample Size:

  • Clinical Sample Comparison: 184 patients enrolled in a multi-center study. Data available for analysis included 151 specimens positive by culture (129 Influenza A, 22 Influenza B).
  • Comparison to original FLU OIA: 112 retrospective frozen clinical specimens.
  • Reproducibility (Inter-Laboratory): Not explicitly stated as a single number for samples, but "Individual panels were prepared, each containing nine blinded specimens and two controls." This was performed on "three different occasions" by "four different laboratories."
  • Reproducibility (Intra-Laboratory): Not explicitly stated as a single number, but "testing specimens at or near the cut-off in multiple replications (n=20)."

• Data Provenance:

  • Clinical Sample Comparison: Multi-center study with geographically diverse clinical sites. The data is retrospective, as it's a "retrospective analysis of previously collected clinical data."
  • Comparison to original FLU OIA: Retrospective frozen clinical specimens.
  • Reproducibility: Not specified beyond "three POL or clinic sites, and one internal Thermo BioStar site." The specimens for reproducibility were "spiked with negative, low positive, moderate positive, and high positive specimens for each virus type."

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth.
• The ground truth for the clinical sample comparison relied on "commercially available cell culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining." This implies laboratory personnel with expertise in viral culture and fluorescent antibody staining were involved, but their specific qualifications or number are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set

• The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). The ground truth was established by "commercially available cell culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining."

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

• No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) test, not an imaging or AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Its performance is compared to a historical reference method (viral culture) or a predicate device, not in terms of human reader improvement with AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance study was conducted. The performance characteristics for the FLU OIA® A/B (and the original FLU OIA) were established by comparing the device's output (positive/negative for Influenza A/B) directly against the ground truth (viral culture and fluorescent antibody staining). The reported sensitivities are standalone performance metrics.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The primary ground truth used for the clinical sample comparison was viral culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining.

8. Sample Size for Training Set

• The document does not mention a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This device is an optical immunoassay, which does not typically involve training on datasets in the same way an AI algorithm would. The "Performance characteristics for the original AB FLU OIA assay were initially established in a multi-center study" but this refers to the initial validation of the technology, not a training set for a learning algorithm. Subsequent comparability studies were performed using "inactivated virus standards, live virus strains, and a panel of retrospective frozen clinical specimens."

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established

• As noted above, a "training set" in the context of an AI algorithm is not applicable here. For the "Performance characteristics for the original AB FLU OIA assay," the ground truth would have been established through methods such as viral culture, as detailed for the clinical sample comparison. The comparability studies also relied on "inactivated virus standards" and "live virus strains" where the viral status would be known.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Thermo BioStar® RSV OLA assay is an Optical ImmunoAssay test for the rapid and qualitative detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) antigens (nucleoproteins) from nasal wash and nasopharyngeal swab specimens. This test is intended for in vitro diagnostic use to aid in the diagnosis of RSV infections in symptomatic neonatal and pediatric patients under the age of five. It is recommended that all negative test results be confirmed by cell culture.

The RSV OIA test involves the qualitative extraction and detection of protein antigens unique to RSV (nucleoprotein and fusion protein). The Optical ImmunoAssay technology enables the direct visual detection of a physical change in the optical thickness of molecular thin films. This change is a result of antigen-antibody binding on an optical surface (silicon wafer). When an extracted specimen is placed directly on the optical surface, the immobilized specific antibodies capture the antigen. After washing, the substrate is added, increasing the thickness (mass enhancement) of the molecular thin film. This change in thickness alters the reflected light path and is visually perceived as a color change. Slight changes in optical thickness produce a distinct, visible color change. A positive result appears as a purple spot on the predominant gold background. When antigen is not present in the specimen, no binding takes place. Therefore, the optical thickness remains unchanged and the original gold color indicating a negative result.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the RSV OIA® 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 sensitivity and specificity thresholds that needed to be met for regulatory clearance. Instead, it presents the achieved performance characteristics and compares them to a predicate device and historical standard method (viral culture). The implicit acceptance criterion seems to be demonstrating substantial equivalence to these established methods.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: A total of 414 nasalpharyngeal specimens were included in the data analysis from a multicenter study, with 77 specimens excluded.
• Data Provenance: The data was collected from a multicenter study with "geographically diverse clinical sites," indicating it was conducted in multiple locations. The study was clinical, suggesting prospective or a mix of prospective and retrospective data collection, focused on symptomatic neonatal and pediatric patients. Specific countries are not mentioned.

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

The document states that the RSV OIA test was compared to "commercially available cell culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining." It also mentions "Secondary confirmation testing of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture was done by specific nucleic acid detection by PCR."

This suggests that the ground truth was established by:

• Cell Culture: This is a laboratory standard, executed by trained laboratory personnel.
• Fluorescent Antibody Staining: Performed as a confirmation and typing method, also by trained laboratory personnel.
• PCR: Used for secondary confirmation, performed by trained laboratory personnel.

The document does not specify the number of individual experts who performed these ground truth assessments or their specific qualifications (e.g., "board-certified virologist with 10 years of experience"). However, the reliance on established laboratory methods implies qualified personnel.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document describes a clear adjudication process for discrepant results:

• "Secondary confirmation testing of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture was done by specific nucleic acid detection by PCR."

This indicates a hierarchical adjudication method where PCR was used to resolve discrepancies between the OIA test and primary cell culture results.

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

No, the document does not describe a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance. The device is a diagnostic assay (OIA), not an AI-powered image analysis or decision support tool for human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, the described clinical studies evaluate the standalone performance of the RSV OIA assay. The sensitivity and specificity figures (86.8% and 83.2% for nasal wash; 66.7% and 96.4% for nasopharyngeal swab) represent the performance of the device itself against the established ground truth. There is no human-in-the-loop component mentioned for the device's diagnostic output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was a combination of:

• Laboratory Reference Standard: Commercially available cell culture.
• Confirmatory Assays: Fluorescent antibody staining and specific nucleic acid detection by PCR.

This represents a strong form of ground truth based on established scientific and diagnostic methods.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information on a specific "training set" sample size. For an Optical ImmunoAssay (OIA) like the RSV OIA, the development process typically involves optimizing reagents and protocols during product development rather than training a machine learning algorithm on a distinct dataset. Clinical studies are performed for validation and performance assessment, not for "training" in the machine learning sense.

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

As there is no explicit mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning, there is no description of how ground truth for such a set was established. Product development and optimization would rely on laboratory-based characterization against known positive and negative controls, and potentially early clinical samples, similar to the methods described for ground truth in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Thermo BioStar® RSV OIA assay is an Optical ImmunoAssay (OIA) test for the qualitative, rapid detection of respiratory syncytial virus antigens (nucleoprotein) from nasal wash specimens. This test is intended for in vitro use to aid in the diagnosis of respiratory syncytial virus infections in symptomatic neonatal and pediatric patients under the age of five. It is recommended that all negative results be confirmed by cell culture.

The RSV OIA test involves the qualitative extraction and detection of protein antigens unique to RSV (nucleoprotein and fusion protein). The Optical ImmunoAssay technology enables the direct visual detection of a physical change in the optical thickness of molecular thin films. This change is a result of antigenantibody binding on an optical surface (silicon wafer). When an extracted specimen is placed directly on the optical surface, the immobilized specific antibodies capture the antigen. After washing, the substrate is added, increasing the thickness (mass enhancement) of the molecular thin film. This change in thickness alters the reflected light path and is visually perceived as a color change. Slight changes in optical thickness produce a distinct, visible color change. A positive result appears as a purple spot on the predominant gold background. When antigen is not present in the specimen, no binding takes place. Therefore, the optical thickness remains unchanged and the surface retains the original gold color indicating a negative result.

The provided text describes the RSV OIA® assay, a rapid test for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) antigens.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "The device must achieve a sensitivity of at least X%"). Instead, it presents performance metrics from the clinical studies. For the purpose of this analysis, we can infer that the reported performance was deemed acceptable for FDA clearance.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test set sample size:
  • Reproducibility study: 162 samples (9 blinded samples tested 3 times at 6 sites).
  • Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity study: 241 nasal wash specimens were included in the data analysis (out of 267 enrolled patients).
• Data provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the "two-site study in patients from emergency rooms and health clinics" and "four hospital laboratories and two physician office laboratories (POL)" suggest a prospective study design from clinical settings. The country of origin is not specified, but given the FDA submission, it's highly likely to be the USA.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing the initial ground truth (cell culture with fluorescent antibody staining). It only states that the comparison was made against "commercially available cell culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining."

However, for secondary confirmation testing of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture, "specific nucleic acid detection by PCR" was used. The expertise for performing and interpreting these methods is not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document describes secondary confirmation testing for discordant results in the sensitivity and specificity study: "Secondary confirmation testing of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture was done by specific nucleic acid detection by PCR." This implies a form of adjudication for discordant cases, where PCR acted as a tie-breaker or a higher-tier confirmation method for a specific subset of results. There is no mention of a traditional 2+1 or 3+1 expert review panel for the entire dataset.

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

There is no mention of a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or any assessment of how human readers improve with or without AI assistance. The device is a diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human interpretation.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

Yes, the described performance of the RSV OIA assay is a standalone performance, as it is a diagnostic kit that provides a direct read-out (color change) and does not involve human interpretation beyond observing this change. The sensitivity and specificity figures represent the algorithm's (or assay's) performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for the clinical sensitivity and specificity study was:

• Expert Consensus/Reference Method: "Commercially available cell culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining."
• Molecular Pathology (for discordant cases): "Specific nucleic acid detection by PCR" for secondary confirmation of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size. This is typical for traditional in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays, where the device's design and parameters are often developed using internal R&D, and then validated with independent clinical studies. The concept of a distinct "training set" as understood in machine learning (ML) is not directly applicable or discussed here.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

As no training set is explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not described. The development of the assay itself would have relied on established biological and chemical principles to detect RSV antigens, likely using purified antigens and characterized clinical samples during its optimization phase.

Ask a specific question about this device