Search Results

The Amelung AMAX CS-190 Coagulation Analyzer can be used for the detection of fibrin formation utilizing either mechanical principles (ball method) or photo-optical principles to perform clot based tests such as prothrombin time(PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), fibrinogen, factor assays, and other clotting tests. In addition, the AMAX CS-190 Coagulation Analyzer can be used for chromogenic assays such as antithrombin III (AT III).

The Amelung AMAX CS-190 Coagulation Analyzer is an automated random access multipurpose analyzer.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the AMAX CS-190 Coagulation Analyzer, framed to address your specific questions about acceptance criteria and the supporting study:

The provided document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a clear, quantitative manner. Instead, it presents regression statistics (correlation coefficients, r, and linear regression equations) and coefficients of variation for precision. The implied acceptance criteria are that these statistical measures demonstrate "substantial equivalency" to predicate devices. Without explicit thresholds for 'r' values or 'CV' percentages that define "substantial equivalency," it's impossible to list precise acceptance criteria as requested.

The study presented is a comparison study of the AMAX CS-190 Coagulation Analyzer against existing predicate devices (TOA Medical Electronics CA-5000, BBL Fibrometer, and a manual spectrophotometric method). The goal is to demonstrate that the new device performs similarly to or as well as established methods.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As mentioned, explicit acceptance criteria are not defined in the provided text. The reported device performance is characterized by the correlation coefficient (r) and linear regression equations (y = mx + b) when compared to predicate devices, and coefficient of variation (CV) for precision.

Note on AT III Regression Equation: The provided regression equation for AT III (y = 0.848x + 5.0x F = 0.1272x F = 0.1272y...) appears to be garbled in the source text. I've only included the first part that seems relevant for a linear regression.

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

The document does not specify the sample size for the test set (the comparison studies).

The data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not mentioned.

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

This information is not applicable as the study is comparing instrument measurements, not human interpretations of images or clinical data. The "ground truth" for the comparison studies is the measurement obtained from the predicate devices or the manual spectrophotometric method.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or subjective assessment that would require adjudication. The comparison is between instrument readings.

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 type of study is typically used for diagnostic imaging or clinical evaluation where human readers interpret cases. The study described is a direct comparison of instrument performance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was Done

Yes, this is effectively a standalone performance study from the perspective of the AMAX CS-190 Coagulation Analyzer. The device is evaluated based on its direct measurements compared to established methods, without human interpretation influencing the final output beyond operating the instrument.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" used in these comparison studies is the measurement obtained from established, predicate devices or methods. This includes:

• TOA Medical Electronics CA-5000 (mechanical method)
• BBL Fibrometer (mechanical method)
• Manual spectrophotometric method (for chromogenic assays)

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set. This type of comparison study focuses on validating the performance of a device by comparing it to existing, established methods on a sample of patient specimens. It's not a machine learning model that requires a distinct training phase in the typical sense.

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

As there is no mention of a training set, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device