Search Results

The intended use of the device is for the qualitative and/ or quantitative determination of serum IgG antibodies to Entamoeba histolytica using an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) technique.

The device is an Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). The antigen capture takes place in microwells. During the first incubation, antibodies in the patient's serum binds to antigen attached to the test wells. After washing the excess antibodies away, an enzyme complex binds to the antigen-antibody complex. After washings that remove unbound enzyme, a substrate is added which develops a blue color in the presence of the enzyme complex and peroxide. The stop solution ends the reaction and turns the The blue color to yellow. results read may be be spectrophotometrically with a microplate reader or visually.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study details:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

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

   • Test set size: The text provides conflicting numbers within the table structure.
     • For the "Original 510(k) Test Kit ASK Abstract C 38 Data", it states "Pos. (64) Neg. (104) 168". This implies a total of 168 samples.
     • For the "Modified Test Kit Comparison Data for Bench Study", it shows "Pos. (8) Neg. (49) 57". This implies a total of 57 samples.
     • It is unclear if the "Modified Test Kit" used a subset of the "Original 510(k)" samples or an entirely different set. The wording "Comparison Data for Bench Study" suggests a new, smaller set was used to validate the modified kit against the original.
   • Data provenance: Not explicitly stated. Given the context of a 510(k) submission for a diagnostic test for Entamoeba histolytica, it is likely that the samples were collected from individuals in regions where the disease is prevalent, which would include "endemic third world countries" and "immigration centers in industrialized countries" as mentioned in the "Intended Use". The data is retrospective, as it refers to "samples confirmed as positive or negative".

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

   • This information is not provided in the text. The ground truth is stated as "Serum samples confirmed as positive or negative for antibodies to E. histolytica", but the method of confirmation (e.g., through culture, PCR, or expert serological evaluation) and the number/qualifications of individuals who made these confirmations are not detailed.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • None described. The text simply states that samples were "confirmed as positive or negative." There is no mention of a process involving multiple experts or an adjudication decision rule.

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 study was not done. This device is an ELISA test system, a laboratory diagnostic kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply.

5. 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) for the "Modified Test Kit" reflects the performance of the assay itself, independent of human interpretation beyond potential visual reading (which was assessed separately as "visual interpretation" and found to be substantially equivalent). The ELISA kit is the "algorithm" here, and its output (color change leading to a positive/negative result) is what was evaluated.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • The ground truth was based on "Serum samples confirmed as positive or negative for antibodies to E. histolytica". This implies a reference standard based on confirmation of the presence or absence of E. histolytica antibodies, likely through a combination of other established diagnostic methods (e.g., culture, PCR, or a consensus of multiple serological tests or clinical presentations), but the specific method is not detailed. It is not pathology or direct outcomes data in the sense of patient recovery, but rather an established diagnostic classification for the samples.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / not provided. As an ELISA test kit modification, this submission focuses on validating the performance of the modified kit against a predicate device. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning, as the device is not based on AI/machine learning. The "testing" referred to is for validation against known samples.

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

   • Not applicable / not provided for the same reason as point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device

The intended use of the device is for the qualitative determination Cryptosporidium antigen in feces. The ELISA test kit is of indicated for use with fecal specimens from patient's with diarrhea aid in the detection of Cryptosporidium gastrointestinal to infection.

The device is an antigen capture enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for use with stools/ fecal material. The antigen capture takes place in microplate wells. During the first incubation, Cryptosporidium antigens present in the stool supernatant are captured by antibodies attached to the test wells. The second incubation adds an additional anti-Cryptosporidium antibody that "sandwiches" the antigen. The next incubation identifies the antibody/ antigen complex and amplifies the signal by the addition of an anti-immunoglobulin antibody conjugated to horse radish peroxidase (HRP). After washings that remove unbound enzyme, a substrate is added which develops a blue color in the presence of the enzyme complex. The stop solution ends the reaction and turns the blue color to yellow. The results may be read spectrophotometrically with a microplate reader or visually.

The TREND Cryptosporidium Direct Detection Test System is an ELISA test kit intended for the qualitative determination of Cryptosporidium antigen in feces from patients with diarrhea to aid in the detection of Cryptosporidium gastrointestinal infection. The study aimed to validate the substantial equivalence of the device to a referenced predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document implicitly defines acceptance criteria through comparison to a predicate device. Substantial equivalence is validated if the performance (sensitivity/specificity) is equivalent.

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

The test set consisted of fecal samples known to be positive or negative for Cryptosporidium parvum by conventional microscopy with modified acid-fast (MAF) staining.

• Study A: 96 samples (26 Microscopy +, 70 Microscopy -)
• Study B: 97 samples (68 Microscopy +, 29 Microscopy -)

The data provenance is stated as "Clinical Laboratory Bench Studies were performed in-house and at two off-site locations, a parasitology reference laboratory with a high incidence of immunocompromised patients and a university research center." This suggests a combination of retrospective (known positive/negative samples) and potentially prospective (samples from the high incidence lab) data, although it's not explicitly detailed as retrospective or prospective. The country of origin is not specified.

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

The ground truth was established by "conventional microscopy with modified acid-fast (MAF) staining." The document does not specify the number of experts who performed these microscopic examinations or their qualifications (e.g., years of experience as a microbiologist or parasitologist).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document doesn't explicitly describe an adjudication method for the ground truth. It simply states that samples were "known to be positive or negative for Cryptosporidium parvum by conventional microscopy with modified acid fast (MAF) staining." This implies a single determination or a standard laboratory process was used without a separate adjudication panel.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study compares the performance of the device to a predicate device and standard microscopy. It does not measure the improvement of human readers with AI assistance.

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

Yes, a standalone study was performed. The performance data presented (Sensitivity and Specificity for Study A and Study B) relate directly to the output of the ELISA test kit (the "algorithm" in this context) without a human-in-the-loop component influencing the primary test result. The results are read spectrophotometrically or visually, but the core performance metrics are for the test system itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The primary ground truth used was expert consensus via conventional microscopy with modified acid-fast (MAF) staining. This is a laboratory-based diagnostic method.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not provide information about a separate training set. The study describes performance testing using clinical laboratory bench studies. For this type of ELISA kit, robust training sets in the AI sense are typically not discussed, as the "training" (calibration, optimization) of the assay components and parameters would be part of the manufacturing and development process, rather than a distinct data-driven training phase after the assay design is fixed for performance testing.

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

Since a training set (in the AI context) is not explicitly mentioned, information on how its ground truth was established is not provided. The development and optimization of such assays would generally involve internal validation against well-characterized samples, but this is distinct from the formal performance testing described.

Ask a specific question about this device