Search Results

The MiniStick Pregnancy Test is a monoclonal antibody-based immunoassay intended for the visual qualitative detection of human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) in urine as an early indicator of pregnancy. Its intended use is identical to that of several professional products currently available for use in clinical laboratories or physicians' offices.

The MiniStick Pregnancy Test is an immunodiagnostic system that detects the presence of HCG in the urine sample through the formation of a complex which is held together by the HCG molecule. The patient's urine sample enters a paper reservoir which is in contact with a pad containing a dried conjugate of colloid gold-monoclonal antibody (reddish in color). The urine sample will then reconstitute the dried conjugate. If HCG is present in the sample, it will react with the monoclonal antibody to form a complex of colloid gold-monoclonal antibody-HCG. This complex migrates up a membrane strip chromatographically and through a band of immobilized goat anti-HCG. Because the antibody of this immobilized goat anti-HCG is able to bind the HCG molecule of the migrating complex, a visible reddish band is formed along the exact location of the immobilized goat anti-HCG antibody. If there is no HCG present in the sample, the colloid gold-monoclonal antibody conjugate will pass through the immobilized goat anti-HCG band and no colored line will form -a negative test result. Further up the membrane, past the anti-HCG test region consisting of a band of immobilized goat anti-mouse IgG. This band of antibody will bind only conjugate and form a colored line, regardless of whether HCG is present in the urine or not. Appearance of the control line assures reagent integrity as well as correct testing procedure.

The provided document describes the MiniStick Pregnancy Test, a qualitative visual test system for the detection of human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) in urine.

Here's an analysis based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set Sample Size: 206 clinical urine specimens (55 positive and 151 negative).
• Data Provenance: The study was conducted by "Vanguard personnel" through "laboratory testing." The origin of the urine samples (e.g., country) is not specified, but they are referred to as "clinical urine specimens," implying they were collected from human patients. The study is retrospective as it used pre-collected urine specimens.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications used to establish the ground truth for the 206 clinical urine specimens. It simply states that the specimens were "55 positive and 151 negative," implying a pre-existing classification.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method for the test set. The ground truth (positive/negative status of the 206 specimens) appears to be pre-established. The study focused on comparing the MiniStick to the HOMECUNIC One-Step Pregnancy Test against this pre-established ground truth.

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 compares two devices (MiniStick and HOMECLINIC) for their accuracy in detecting HCG, not the performance of human readers with or without an AI assistant.

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

This device is a qualitative visual immunoassay pregnancy test, which fundamentally requires human interpretation of a visual line. Therefore, a purely standalone algorithm performance in the modern sense (i.e., AI interpreting the test) was not performed. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device itself providing a visual result that a human then reads. The study evaluates the accuracy of this device's visual output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was the known HCG status (positive or negative) of the 206 clinical urine specimens. This implies a reference method or prior clinical testing was used to determine the true HCG status of each sample.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a separate training set. This is not an AI or machine learning device in the modern sense. It's an immunoassay. The concept of "training set" as used in AI does not apply here. The "training" in this context would be the original development and optimization of the immunoassay reagents and design.

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

As there's no explicit training set mentioned for an AI context, this question is not applicable. For the immunoassay development, the ground truth would have been established through known concentrations of HCG and other related hormones, and clinical samples with confirmed HCG status, to optimize the monoclonal antibody specificity andassay parameters. However, specific details of this development are not provided in the 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MiniClinic Ovulation Predictor is a monoclonal antibody-based immunoassay intended for the visual qualitative detection of human Luteinizing Hormone (hLH) in urine. This test is used to detect the mid-cycle LH surge which occurs approximately 24 hours prior to ovulation. By predicting ovulation, conception can be planned most effectively. Its intended use is identical to that of several over-the-counter (OTC) products currently available for home use.

The MiniClinic Ovulation Predictor is a qualitative visual test system for the detection of human Luteinizing Hormone (hLH) in urine as an indicator of ovulation and would be classified as a Human Luteinizing Hormone Test System.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the MiniClinic Ovulation Predictor, focusing on the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly state formal acceptance criteria (e.g., a specific sensitivity or specificity threshold to be met). However, it does describe the device's intended function and principles of operation, which, when successful, would indicate acceptable performance. The "reported device performance" in this context refers to the device's ability to produce a colored line when hLH is present above baseline and to provide a control line.

It is important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary (from 1996), which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing detailed clinical study results with specific performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy percentages). Therefore, explicit quantitative acceptance criteria and their direct fulfillment are not present.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The 510(k) summary describes the principles and procedures of the device and its intended use, but it does not detail any specific clinical or analytical studies with test sets, sample sizes, or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

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

This information is not provided in the document. There is no mention of a test set, experts, or ground truth establishment for a specific study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the document. As there's no mention of a test set or study design, no adjudication method is described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

This information is not provided in the document. This device is a pre-AI era, qualitative visual test for direct consumer use. There would be no MRMC study involving AI assistance for this type of product.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. The MiniClinic Ovulation Predictor is a visual, qualitative immunoassay. It does not involve an algorithm or AI. The "performance" is the visual interpretation by the user.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

This information is not explicitly stated in the context of a formal study with a defined ground truth. For this type of device, the "ground truth" during its development and validation would likely involve:

• Laboratory-controlled hLH concentrations: Testing the device with known concentrations of hLH in urine samples (or synthetic urine) to confirm its ability to detect levels above a certain threshold and produce a proportional color.
• Correlation with other hLH measurement methods: Comparing the device's results with quantitative laboratory assays for hLH to confirm accuracy.
• Correlation with actual ovulation: Ultimately, the "ground truth" for its intended use (predicting ovulation) would be the actual occurrence of ovulation, confirmed through other methods like basal body temperature, ultrasound, or subsequent pregnancy.

However, the provided text does not describe any specific studies that established ground truth using these or other methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided in the document. As a chemical/immunological test, it wouldn't typically have a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Its development would involve chemical optimization and analytical validation.

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

This information is not provided and is largely not applicable in the context of an immunoassay device. The "ground truth" relevant to its development would involve the chemical properties and concentrations of hLH, and the optimization of the antibody-conjugate system to react reliably with hLH.

Ask a specific question about this device