Search Results

The ChemTrak AccuMeter® Theophylline Test provides a rapid, noninstrumented enzyme immunochromatographic method for in vitro quantitative measurement of Theophylline concentrations in ambulatory patients using fingerstick whole blood, heparinized venous whole blood or serum. This test has not been validated for use with blood from neonates.

The AccuMeter Theophylline Test is a rapid immunoassay for the quantitative detection of theophylline, using HRP labeled anti-theophylline antibodies and immobilized monoclonal anti-theophylline antibodies. The immunospecific signal is measured by the height of the enzyme label along the test strip.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document explicitly states "The regression data demonstrates substantial equivalence, as well as the safety and effectiveness, of the AccuMeter Theophylline Test to the TDx Theophylline Assay." This implies that the achieved correlation coefficients and other performance metrics met the implicit acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence to the predicate device. Specific numerical thresholds for "acceptable" correlation, precision, or recovery are not explicitly stated.

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

• Accuracy (Table 1):
  • Sample Size: 102 observations (patients where AccuMeter results were not below the detection limit and valid cassette runs).
  • Data Provenance: Clinical studies conducted at three independent clinical sites. From patients receiving theophylline therapy and some theophylline-free subjects. IRB approval was obtained. Retro/Prospective: It is a prospective clinical study since patients were "recruited" and "informed consent was obtained."
• Accuracy (Table 2 - comparison of sample types):
  • Sample Size: 40 patients for fingerstick vs TDx comparison, 39 patients for serum vs TDx, and 39 patients for whole blood vs TDx.
  • Data Provenance: Conducted at one clinical site. Patients receiving theophylline therapy. Prospective, as mentioned.
• Precision:
  • Sample Size:
    • Study 1: 80 for Level 1, 80 for Level 2 (total 160 runs over 9-20 days).
    • Study 2: 80 for Level 1, 80 for Level 2 (total 160 runs over 9-20 days).
    • Study 3: 36 for Level 1, 36 for Level 2 (total 72 runs over 9-20 days).
  • Data Provenance: Three field sites. Controls were tested over 9 to 20 days.
• Recovery:
  • Sample Size: 10 replicates for each of the 5 concentrations (total 50 measurements).
  • Data Provenance: Theophylline was spiked into whole blood, indicating a laboratory-based study rather than patient samples.

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

• The ground truth for the accuracy studies was established by the TDx Theophylline Monoclonal II Assay, which is a widely accepted laboratory method (predicate device).
• The document does not state the number of experts or their qualifications involved in performing the TDx testing or interpreting its results. It mentions "TDx Theophylline testing was performed by a centralized reference laboratory," implying qualified personnel, but no specifics are given.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• None specified. For the accuracy studies, the TDx assay served as the reference standard, so there was no multi-reader human adjudication process for establishing ground truth as there might be in image-based AI studies.
• For the AccuMeter itself, it is a "noninstrumented enzyme immunochromatographic method" with "Visual Quantitative" detection. While human observation is required for reading the height of the enzyme label, the document doesn't describe any adjudication process for these readings.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study is for a medical device (a rapid immunoassay for theophylline concentration), not an AI algorithm designed to assist human readers with interpretation. The device itself performs the measurement.

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

• This device operates as a standalone test in the sense that it provides a direct quantitative measurement. While a human visually reads the result (height of the enzyme label), the core "algorithm" (the immunoassay process) is performing the measurement without direct human-in-the-loop interpretation of complex data. The document does not describe the device as having an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The primary ground truth used for accuracy and comparison was the TDx Theophylline Monoclonal II Assay, which is a Fluorescence Polarization Immunoassay. This is a laboratory-based, quantitative reference method.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable / Not specified. This document describes the validation of a physical diagnostic assay (AccuMeter Theophylline Test), not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set." The methodology is based on biochemical reactions.

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

• Not applicable. As a non-AI diagnostic device, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

Ask a specific question about this device