Search Results

The Amedica Drug Screen Methamphetamine Test is a immunochromatographic assay for the rapid detection of methamphetamine in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 1000 ng/ml. This assay has not been evaluated at point-of-care locations and is intended for use by healthcare professionals. This assay provides only a preliminary result. A more specific alternative chemical method is needed to obtain a confirmed result.

Membrane based one-step, lateral flow, competitive immunoassay use colloidal gold for visual detection. The test cutoff is 1000 ng/ml.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Amedica Drug Screen Methamphetamine Test, structured to address your specific points:

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details for Amedica Drug Screen Methamphetamine Test

The information provided is from a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than establishing de novo performance criteria against a predefined set of acceptance values. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" for this device are implicitly tied to demonstrating performance comparable to the predicate device and achieving a high level of agreement with a confirmatory method (GC/MS).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The text mentions a "correlation study using blind-labeled clinical specimens" and a "clinical site study." However, the specific number of samples (sample size) for these test sets is not explicitly stated in the provided document.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not specified.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not specified. The use of "clinical specimens" implies a real-world context, but whether they were collected specifically for this study (prospective) or were pre-existing (retrospective) is not detailed.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• The document implies that the ground truth for the correlation study was established by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) results. GC/MS is an analytical chemistry technique, not a human expert. Therefore, the concept of "number of experts" is not directly applicable in this context.
• For the "clinical site study," human professionals (implied to be healthcare professionals working in certified laboratories) used the device. However, their role was to use the device, not to establish a separate ground truth against which the device was compared. The ground truth for this validation would still likely refer back to objective analytical methods or the predicate device's performance.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable, as GC/MS is an instrumental method. For the clinical site study, the "professionals" were working in "two certified laboratories," implying they were qualified given the laboratory accreditation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• None specified. The "correlation study" used GC/MS as the reference standard, which is an objective analytical method. There's no mention of multiple human readers or an adjudication process for the GC/MS results themselves or for the visual test results from the Amedica device to establish a consensus ground truth. The agreement was likely a direct comparison of the device's qualitative result (positive/negative) against the quantitative GC/MS result relative to the 1000 ng/ml cutoff.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or clearly conducted. The focus was on the device's performance against GC/MS and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. While a "clinical site study" was performed, it describes the device being "use by professionals" rather than a formal MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance to measure an effect size.

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

• Yes, in essence, the "correlation study" is a standalone evaluation of the device's analytical performance. The "Amedica Drug Screen Methamphetamine Test" is a lateral flow immunoassay that provides a visual qualitative result. While a human physically interprets the lines on the strip, the device itself is a "standalone" diagnostic rather than an AI algorithm that augments human interpretation. The reported agreement of "> 94% agreement with GC/MS results" directly reflects this standalone performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Expert Consensus: No.
• Pathology: No (this is for drug detection, not tissue pathology).
• Outcomes Data: No.
• Other: The primary ground truth for evaluating the device's accuracy was Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), which is a highly specific and sensitive analytical method considered the gold standard for drug confirmation.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable / Not specified. This device is a competitive immunoassay, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "training" in this context would refer to the development and optimization of the immunoassay reagents and manufacturing process, which doesn't typically involve a distinct data "training set" like AI models do.

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

• Not applicable. As mentioned above, there isn't a "training set" in the machine learning sense for this type of device. The immunoassay's specificity and sensitivity are inherent in its chemical design and production, not learned from a dataset.

Ask a specific question about this device