Search Results

qualitative, paramagneticparticle, chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassays for the direction of chlamydia antigen in adult male urethral, female endocervical, and male urine specimens, using the ACCESS® Immunoassay System.

The Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur Inc. ACCESS® Chlamvdia antigen are qualitative, paramagneticparticle, chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassays for the direction of chlamydia antigen in adult male urethral, female endocervical, and male urine specimens, using the ACCESS® Immunoassay System.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, outlining the acceptance criteria and study details for the ACCESS® Chlamydia Reagents:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

The ACCESS® Chlamydia Reagents are qualitative, paramagnetic-particle, chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassays intended for the detection of Chlamydia antigen. The study compared the device's performance against culture or DFA (Direct Fluorescent Antibody) as a reference standard.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined "acceptance criteria" as pass/fail thresholds. Instead, it presents the reported device performance, implying these are the results achieved and deemed acceptable for substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size:
  • Against Culture or DFA: 2092 urogenital specimens and 572 male urine specimens.
  • Against Predicate Device (Syva MicroTrak® II Chlamydia EIA): 1518 urogenital specimens and 303 male urine specimens.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It can be inferred that the data is retrospective clinical study data, as it describes a comparison in past clinical studies. The study was conducted by Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur, Inc., based in Chaska, Minnesota, USA, suggesting the data is likely from the United States.

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

The document does not provide details on the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth. It simply refers to "culture or DFA" as the reference method. In clinical microbiology, these methods are typically performed by trained laboratory professionals.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method for the test set results. The ground truth was established by "culture or DFA," which are objective laboratory tests that generally do not require adjudication in the same way as subjective expert interpretations.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study is for a diagnostic assay, comparing its performance to a reference standard (culture/DFA) and a predicate device. It does not involve human readers interpreting images or data with and without AI assistance.

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

Yes, the study presents standalone performance. The ACCESS® Chlamydia Reagents are an in vitro diagnostic device that provides a direct result for Chlamydia antigen. The reported performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) are for the device alone, without human intervention in interpreting the assay's final output. Human involvement is limited to performing the assay and reading the instrument's result.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used was expert reference methods: cell culture or Direct Fluorescent Antibody (DFA). These are established laboratory techniques for the detection of Chlamydia and are considered gold standards or highly reliable reference methods.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide any information about a specific training set or its sample size. This type of submission (510(k) summary from 1996) is for an immunoassay, which does not typically involve machine learning model training in the same way that AI/ML-based devices developed more recently do. The "development" of such assays involves reagent formulation, assay optimization, and internal validation, but not usually a distinct "training set" in the computational sense.

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

As there is no mention of a training set in the context of an AI/ML model, this question is not applicable based on the provided information. The assay's performance was evaluated against the reference methods (culture/DFA) on the test set.

Ask a specific question about this device