Search Results

The ACL TOP Family 70 Series (ACL TOP 370, ACL TOP 570 and ACL TOP 770 / 770s / 770 LAS) are bench top, fully automated, random access analyzers designed specifically for in vitro diagnostic clinical use by health care professionals in the hemostasis laboratory for coagulation and/or fibrinolysis testing in the assessment of thrombosis and/or hemostasis. The systems provide results for both direct hemostasis measurements and calculated parameters.

The ACL TOP Family 70 Series are fully automated coagulation analyzers that utilize the same intuitive software, the same consumables, reagents, calibrators and controls, and provide the same analytical methodology for routine and specialty assay result reporting as the predicate ACL TOP Family 50 Series.

The ACL TOP Family 70 Series instrument performs the following types of tests, using the same optical measuring wavelengths and test parameters as the predicate ACL TOP Family 50 Series:

• . Coagulometric (Turbidimetric) Measurements
• Chromogenic (Absorbance) Measurements .
• . Immunological Measurements

The ACL TOP Family 70 Series also offers the same pre-analytical features available on the ACL TOP Family 50 Series. These features alert the instrument operator to a potential HIL (Hemoglobin, Icteric and Lipemia) interference situation specific to the assays requested for a sample, underfilled sample tubes or a detected clog.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the ACL TOP Family 70 Series device, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion for the ACL TOP Family 70 Series appears to be demonstrating equivalent analytical performance to its predicate device, the ACL TOP Family 50 Series, across various representative assays. This equivalency is assessed through precision and method comparison studies.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Study Details:

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

   • Precision Studies:
     • For each material/control for the selected representative assays, samples were run for 20 days at two runs per day, 2 replicates per run, resulting in a total of n=80 data points per material.
     • Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but based on the context of an FDA submission for an in vitro diagnostic device, these would typically be laboratory-generated samples or commercial control materials. The studies were performed internally by the manufacturer ("Instrumentation Laboratory Company").
   • Method Comparison Studies:
     • Sample sizes varied per assay:
       • HemosIL D-Dimer HS 500: N = 116 clinical samples
       • HemosIL Factor VIII: N = 104 clinical samples
       • HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (PT): N = 116 clinical samples
       • HemosIL RecombiPlasTin 2G (Fibrinogen): N = 114 clinical samples
       • HemosIL Liquid Anti-Xa: N = 207 clinical samples
     • Provenance: The studies included "clinical samples spanning each assay's analytical measuring range (AMR)." The country of origin of these clinical samples is not specified, but they are prospectively collected or selected for the study based on their span across the AMR.

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

   • This being an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device for laboratory analysis, the "ground truth" for the test set is established by the measurement itself on a recognized, cleared, and well-characterized comparator device (the predicate ACL TOP Family 50 Series), or by the known concentrations/activity of control materials. It's not a subjective interpretation task that requires human adjudication or expert consensus in the same way as, for example, image-based diagnostic AI. Therefore, no human experts are explicitly mentioned as establishing a subjective ground truth for these analytical performance studies. The "ground truth" for method comparison is the performance of the predicate device.

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

   • None. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving subjective human interpretation (e.g., radiology reads) where discrepancies need to be resolved. For analytical performance studies of a medical device measuring quantitative analytes, the ground truth is objective (the measured value from the predicate device or a known concentration in a control).

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 is not applicable here as this is an in vitro diagnostic instrument, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting cases. The device automatically performs coagulation and/or fibrinolysis testing.

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

   • Yes, effectively. The entire study evaluates the analytical performance of the device itself (the ACL TOP Family 70 Series) in a standalone manner. While trained lab personnel operate the instrument, the performance metrics (precision, method comparison) are about the instrument's ability to produce accurate and precise results, independent of human interpretive intervention for the results themselves. The device's "algorithm" (its internal measurement and calculation processes) is being evaluated.

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

   • For precision studies, the ground truth is the known concentration/activity of control and plasma pool materials.
   • For method comparison studies, the ground truth is the measured values obtained from the predicate device (ACL TOP Family 50 Series) for the same clinical samples. The principle is to see if the new device produces equivalent results when compared to an already accepted diagnostic method.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not mention a training set in the context of machine learning or AI model development. This device is an IVD instrument that utilizes established analytical methodologies (coagulometric, chromogenic, immunological measurements) and software, rather than a machine learning model that requires a discrete training phase with labeled data. The studies performed are verification and validation studies to demonstrate performance and equivalency to a predicate.

8. 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. The device's operation is based on pre-defined analytical principles, not on learning from a training dataset to establish a ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device