Search Results

Not Found

Not Found

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

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

• Initial Diagnosis & Post-Therapy Study:

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

• Retrospective Sample Study:

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

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

• Initial Diagnosis & Post-Therapy Study:

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

• Retrospective Sample Study:

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

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

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

6. Standalone Performance Study

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

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

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

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

Acceptance Criteria and Study for H. PYLORI CHEK™ Test

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Sets

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

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

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

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

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

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

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

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

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

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used was:

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

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

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

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

Additional performance aspects that were evaluated include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

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

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

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

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

6. If a Standalone Study Was Done

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

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

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

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

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

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. The sample size for the training set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

E. HISTOLYTICA QUIK CHEK™ Performance Study Summary

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

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

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

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

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

6. Standalone Performance Study

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

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

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

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

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

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE™ test is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of Clostridium difficile glutamate dehydrogenase antigen and toxins A and B in a single reaction well. The test detects C. difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase, as a screen for the presence of C. difficile and confirms the presence of toxigenic C. difficile by detecting toxins A and B in fecal specimens from persons suspected of having C. difficile disease. The test is to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile disease. As with other C. difficile tests, results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.

The C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE™ test uses antibodies specific for qlutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and Toxins A and B of C. difficile. The device contains a Reaction Window with two solid lines and a dotted line of immobilized antibodies. The Antigen line ("Ag") contains antibodies against C. difficile GDH. The Toxin line ("Tox") contains antibodies against C. difficile toxins A and B. The dotted line, representing a control line ("C"), contains anti-HRP antibodies. The Conjugate consists of antibodies to GDH, toxin A, and toxin B coupled to horseradish peroxidase. To perform the test, the fecal specimen is diluted with Diluent, and Conjugate is added to the diluted sample. The diluted sample-conjugate mixture is added to the Sample Well and the device is allowed to incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes. During the incubation, any GDH, toxin A or toxin B in the sample binds to the corresponding antibody-peroxidase conjugate. The antigen-antibody complexes migrate through a filter pad to a membrane where they are captured by the immobilized anti-GDH, anti-toxin A or Anti-toxin B antibody in the line. The Reaction Window is subsequently washed with Wash Buffer, followed by the addition of Substrate. After a 10-minute incubation, the "Ag" and "Tox" reaction is examined visually for the appearance of a blue line. A blue line indicates a positive test. A positive "C" reaction, indicated by a blue dotted line, confirms that sample and all reagents were added in proper sequence and volume, that reagents were active at the time of performing the assay, and that proper sample migration occurred.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE™ device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document provides performance metrics rather than explicitly stated "acceptance criteria" in the format of pass/fail thresholds. However, the reported performance data can be interpreted as the device meeting the implicit acceptance criteria by demonstrating adequate clinical accuracy compared to established reference methods.

Study Information

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: n = 1126 clinical samples.
   • Data Provenance: The study was conducted at 3 clinical sites. The document does not specify the country of origin, but given the FDA 510(k) submission, it is highly likely to be within the United States. The nature of comparing with "tissue culture assay" and "bacterial culture" suggests these are prospectively collected clinical samples, though the document does not explicitly state "prospective" or "retrospective." However, the wording "results from all 3 clinical sites are included in the summary" typically indicates a prospective collection for a clinical trial or evaluation.

2. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:
   The document does not provide details on the number or qualifications of experts. However, the ground truth was established by laboratory methods (bacterial culture and tissue culture assay) and further resolved by commercial ELISA tests. These methods are typically performed by trained laboratory personnel.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • GDH Antigen: Discrepant samples between the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE™ test and bacterial culture were resolved using the C. DIFFICILE CHEK™ - 60 ELISA (which detects GDH antigen).
   • Toxins A and B: Discrepant results between the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE™ test and tissue culture assay were analyzed by either the C. DIFFICILE TOX A/B I/™ test or a "second commercially available Toxin A&B test."

4. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done, What was the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance:
   This device is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay (a diagnostic test kit), not an AI-powered image analysis or diagnostic system. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with/without AI assistance is not applicable to this device. The results are read visually for the appearance of a blue line, which is a direct interpretation of the assay's chemical reaction, not a complex image requiring human expert interpretation in the way AI systems are typically evaluated in MRMC studies.

5. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was Done:
   Yes, a standalone performance was done. The results presented for sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and agreement are directly comparing the device's output (positive/negative blue line) to the ground truth established by the reference methods (bacterial culture and tissue culture assay). There is no explicit "human-in-the-loop" aspect being evaluated in these performance metrics beyond the visual reading of the test result itself, which is integral to the device's function.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • For GDH antigen:
     • Primary reference: Bacterial Culture (for overall presence of C. difficile organism).
     • Secondary/Discrepant resolution: C. DIFFICILE CHEK™ - 60 ELISA (an established GDH antigen detection assay).
     • A separate comparison was also made against Tissue Culture Assay (presumably for toxigenic C. difficile, as it usually detects toxin production), specifically looking at the GDH antigen portion of the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK COMPLETE™.
   • For Toxins A and B:
     • Primary reference: Tissue Culture Assay (the gold standard for detecting toxigenic C. difficile).
     • Secondary/Discrepant resolution: C. DIFFICILE TOX A/B I/™ test or a "second commercially available Toxin A&B test."

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:
   The document does not specify a separate "training set" size for the clinical accuracy evaluation. The n=1126 samples are referred to as the clinical performance evaluation set. This device is an immunoassay kit, which typically does not involve machine learning or AI algorithms that require distinct training and test sets in the same manner as software devices. Any "training" would have been part of the assay development and optimization phases, not explicitly quantified as a clinical "training set" in this context.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
   As there's no explicitly defined "training set" in the context of clinical accuracy for this type of device mentioned in the document, this question is not directly applicable. The methods used to establish ground truth for the evaluation set (bacterial culture and tissue culture assay with ELISA for discrepancy resolution) would be the standard reference methods used in the development and validation of similar assays.

Ask a specific question about this device

The C. DIFF QUIK CHEK™ test is a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for use as a screening test to detect Clostridium difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase, in fecal specimens from persons suspected of having C. difficile disease. The test does not distinguish toxigenic from nontoxigenic strains of C. difficile. With the use of additional tests that detect C. difficile toxins, the test is to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile disease. As with other C. difficile tests, results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.

The C. DIFF QUIK CHEK™ test uses antibodies specific for glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) of C. difficile. The device contains a Reaction Window with two lines of immobilized antibodies. The test line ("T") contains antibodies against C. difficile GDH. The other, representing a control line ("C"), contains anti-IgG antibodies. The Conjugate consists of antibody to GDH coupled to horseradish peroxidase. To perform the test, the fecal specimen is diluted with Diluent, and Conjugate is added to the diluted sample. The diluted sample conjugate mixture is added to the Sample Well and the device is allowed to incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes. During the incubation, any GDH in the sample binds to antibodyperoxidase conjugate. The antigen-antibody complexes migrate through a filter pad to a membrane where they are captured by the immobilized anti-GDH antibody in the line. The Reaction Window is subsequently washed with Wash Buffer, followed by the addition of Substrate. After up to a 10-minute incubation, the "T" reaction is examined visually for the appearance of a blue line indicates a positive test. A positive "C" reaction, indicated by a blue line, confirms that sample and all reagents were added in proper sequence and volume, that reagents were active at the time of performing the assay, and that proper sample migration occurred.

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

Device: C. DIFF QUIK CHEK™ test

Intended Use: A rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay for use as a screening test to detect Clostridium difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase, in fecal specimens from persons suspected of having C. difficile disease. The test does not distinguish toxigenic from nontoxigenic strains of C. difficile. With the use of additional tests that detect C. difficile toxins, the test is to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile disease. Results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as numerical targets in the document. However, the study aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices and clinical correlation. Based on the "Clinical Performance Comparing C. DIFF QUIK CHEK™ Test to Presumptive Bacterial Culture" table and the "Clinical Performance of C. DIFF QUIK CHEK™ Test versus Bacterial Culture Assay after Resolution by another GDH Test" table, the implied acceptance range would be within the 95% Confidence Limits of the reported performance metrics.

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

• Sample Size: 979 fecal specimens.
• Data Provenance: The document states that "Results from 3 studies are included in the summary," and the protocols are in Appendix A and D. It does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts used to establish initial ground truth. The primary comparator was "Presumptive Bacterial Culture."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document describes an adjudication method for discrepant samples:

• "The discrepant samples generated from the C. DIFF QUIK CHEK™ test and the presumptive bacterial culture assay were resolved using a PCR assay, an ELISA for the antigen, or a membrane test for the antigen, as described in the individual studies."
• This indicates a "discrepant analysis" approach, where discrepancies between the index test (C. DIFF QUIK CHEK) and the initial comparator (presumptive bacterial culture) were sent for re-evaluation using one or more additional, often more sensitive or specific, methods (PCR, ELISA, membrane test).

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

No, a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic test (a rapid membrane enzyme immunoassay) and not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool designed to aid human readers in interpreting images or other complex data. Therefore, the concept of human readers improving with AI assistance does not apply.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The C. DIFF QUIK CHEK™ test is presented as a standalone diagnostic device, where the visual interpretation of a distinct blue line (or lack thereof) is the final output. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) presented are for the device operating independently.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary initial ground truth was presumptive bacterial culture (Clostridium difficile Culture media such as cycloserine cefoxitin fructose agar (CCFA)).

For discrepant results, the refined ground truth was established using consensus or advanced methods including:

• PCR assay
• ELISA for the antigen
• Another membrane test for the antigen

This is a form of resolved gold standard, where a more definitive test is used to resolve disagreements between the index test and the initial comparator.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information regarding a specific "training set" or its sample size. This type of regulatory submission (510(k)) for an in-vitro diagnostic typically focuses on clinical validation of the final device, rather than the developmental or training phases that might involve machine learning algorithms. The development of an immunoassay involves laboratory optimization and verification, but not typically a "training set" in the context of AI.

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

As no specific training set information is provided, how its ground truth was established is not applicable and not described in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TECHLAB® ASCA-CHEK test is an ELISA for the qualitative detection of human anti-S. cerevisiae antibodies (ASCA) in feces. 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 TECHLAB® ASCA-CHEK test is an enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the measurement of human anti-S. cerevisiae antibodies in feces as an aid in the diagnosis of Crohn's disease. The assay utilizes antigens of S. cerevisiae for capture and a polyvalent anti-human immunoglobulin conjugate. When human ASCA is present in the fecal specimen, 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 ASCA is an aid in the diagnosis of Crohn's disease within the setting of differentiating Crohn's disease from ulcerative colitis. This noninvasive diagnostic method is simple to perform and requires only a fecal specimen for the analysis.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the TECHLAB® ASCA-CHEK test, outlining the acceptance criteria and the study that demonstrated its performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as clear thresholds (e.g., "sensitivity must be >X%"). Instead, the performance is compared against clinical diagnoses and against a predicate device. The document highlights the sensitivity and specificity values achieved, which implicitly serve as the demonstrated "acceptance" level for this 510(k) submission, aligning with substantial equivalence.

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

• Test Set 1 (All 4 Study Sites, including healthy controls): N=353
  • Crohn's disease: 142
  • Non-Crohn's disease (Ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, healthy persons): 211
• Test Set 2 (All 4 Study Sites, excluding healthy controls): N=285
  • Crohn's disease: 142
  • Ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome: 143
• Test Set 3 (Pediatric sites only, excluding healthy controls): N=146
  • Crohn's disease: 64
  • Ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome: 82
• Test Set 4 (Paired fecal and serum specimens vs. QUANTA Lite ASCA IgG): N=82
  • IBD (Crohn's Disease, Ulcerative Colitis): 70 (CD=47, UC=23)
  • Other (IBS, Cancer, indeterminant): 7
  • Healthy Persons: 5
• Data Provenance: The study was conducted at "four clinical sites" and included a "mixed patient population including both pediatric and adult patients." The document does not specify the country of origin, but given the contact information, it is likely the U.S. The data appears to be retrospective clinical sample collection, where the samples are then tested by the device and compared to existing clinical diagnoses.

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

The document states that the test results were compared to "clinical assessments for disease diagnosis." It does not specify the number of experts, nor their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience"). However, for a diagnosis of Crohn's disease, it is generally established by gastroenterologists, often involving endoscopy, biopsy, and imaging, implying that the "clinical assessments" would be from qualified medical specialists.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). The "ground truth" was established by "clinical assessments for disease diagnosis." This suggests that the clinical diagnosis, as determined by the treating physicians at the four clinical sites, was directly used as the ground truth without a separate adjudication panel for the study itself.

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. This study is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device study comparing the performance of an assay to clinical diagnosis and a predicate assay, not assessing how human readers improve with AI assistance.

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

Yes, this was a standalone (algorithm only) performance study. The TECHLAB® ASCA-CHEK test is an ELISA assay; its performance is measured directly from the assay results compared to the clinical ground truth, without human-in-the-loop interaction with the device's analytical output. The "algorithm" here refers to the biochemical process and readout of the ELISA.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary type of ground truth used was clinical diagnosis. This clinical diagnosis encompasses a broader assessment including potentially pathology, imaging, patient history, and symptomology, as determined by medical professionals. For the comparison with the predicate device, the predicate device's results (performed on serum) also served as a comparative "ground truth" to assess concordance.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate training set. In the context of IVD device submissions, the performance data presented typically relates to the validation of the finalized device (the test set). If internal development or optimization involved training, that information is not provided in this summary.

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

Since no separate training set is described, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device