Search Results

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the detection of IgG, IgA , IgM class anti-cardiolipin antibodies, as an aid in assessing the risk of thrombosis in individuals with anti-phospholipid syndrome.

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the detection of IgG, IgA , IgM class anti-cardiolipin antibodies

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for an "Anti-Cardiolipin Antibody (ACA) Screen ELISA." This document explicitly states that it is marketing clearance and refers to the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It does not contain detailed information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria, acceptance criteria themselves, or performance metrics in the way a clinical study report or even an FDA summary of safety and effectiveness data would.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from this specific document.

Here's what can be inferred or stated from the document, and what cannot:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

• Cannot be provided: This document does not list acceptance criteria or specific performance data (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision) from a study that would demonstrate the device meets those criteria. The letter focuses on the regulatory decision of substantial equivalence.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

• Cannot be provided: The document does not describe the test set, its sample size, or its provenance.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience):

• Cannot be provided: This information is not present in the letter.

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

• Cannot be provided: This information is not present in the letter.

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:

• Cannot be provided: This is an in-vitro diagnostic (ELISA) device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human reading improvement with AI is not applicable or discussed here.

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

• Cannot be provided: Again, this relates to AI/software performance. For an ELISA kit, "standalone performance" generally refers to its analytical and clinical performance when used as intended, not an algorithm's performance. The document does not provide such performance statistics.

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

• Cannot be provided: The document does not describe how ground truth was established for any studies that may have been performed. For an in-vitro diagnostic, "ground truth" would typically come from a reference method or clinical diagnosis with follow-up.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• N/A / Cannot be provided: This is an ELISA kit, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional AI sense.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

• N/A / Cannot be provided: As above, the concept of a training set and its ground truth in the context of AI is not directly applicable to an ELISA kit, and no such information is in the document.

Summary from the provided document:

The provided FDA letter is a notification of substantial equivalence for the "Anti-Cardiolipin Antibody (ACA) Screen ELISA" (K970177/S2). It states the device is an enzyme-linked immunoassay for the detection of IgG, IgA, and IgM class anti-cardiolipin antibodies, intended as an aid in assessing the risk of thrombosis in individuals with anti-phospholipid syndrome. The letter indicates that the FDA has reviewed the 510(k) submission and determined the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

Crucially, this document does not contain the detailed study results, acceptance criteria, or performance data that would typically be found in a Premarket Approval (PMA) document, a summary of safety and effectiveness data (SSED), or a clinical study report. The 510(k) clearance process focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which implies the predicate device's established safety and effectiveness are transferred.

Ask a specific question about this device