Search Results

The quantitative determination of thyroid peroxidase (TPO) autoantibodies in human serum or plasma by a microplate enzymeimmunoassay. Measurements of TPO autoantibodies may aid in the diagnosis of certain thyroid diseases such as Hashimoto, Graves, and nontoxic goiter.

The Monobind method is based on ELISA technology utilizing the streptavidin-blotin reaction to effect separation. Upon mixing blotinylated thyroid peroxidase antigen, and a serum containing the autoantibody (anti-TPO), reaction results between the biotinylated theroid peroxidase antigen and the antibodies to form an immune complex. Simultaneously, the complex is deposited to the well through the high affinity reaction of streptavidin, coated on the well, and biotinylated thyroid peroxidase antigen. After incubation is complete, decantation or aspiration separates the unbound components. The enzyme linked specific antibody (anti-h-lgG) is then added to the microwells. The anti-h-igG enzyme conjugate that binds to the Immobilized Immune complex In a second incubation are separated from unreacted material by a wash step. The enzyme activity In this fraction is directly proportional to the antibody concentration in the specimen. By utilizing several different serum references of known antibody activity, a reference curve can be generated from which the antibody activity of an unknown can be ascertained.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

• Equation to a straight-line: y = 1.02(x) - 5.1
• Correlation coefficient: 0.989
• Mean values for reference method: 127.0 IU/ml (new device) and 122.9 IU/ml (predicate device). This indicates good method agreement. |
  | Linearity / Recovery | Average 101.2% recovery when specimens were diluted and compared to the dose response curve. |

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 82 biological specimens.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or if the study was retrospective or prospective. It mentions the specimens were from "normal and disease states populations," including Hashimoto's thyroiditis, Graves Disease, thyroid nodules, and thyroid carcinoma.

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)

The document does not provide information on the number of experts or their qualifications. The ground truth for the comparison appears to be based on the results from the predicate device (Biomerica anti-thyroid peroxidase ELISA test) which is used as the "reference method."

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

Not applicable. The study compares the new device's quantitative measurements against a predicate device's quantitative measurements, not against expert interpretation requiring adjudication.

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

Not applicable. This is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, not an imaging device or AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers.

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

Yes, this was a standalone performance study. The device (ELISA kit) directly produces a quantitative result; there is no human interpretation of an algorithm's output. The performance described is the device's measurement capability itself.

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

The ground truth for evaluating the new device's performance was the quantitative results obtained from the predicate device, the Biomerica anti-thyroid peroxidase ELISA test. The new device was compared to this "reference method."

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of device development or validation. This is an ELISA kit, which relies on chemical reactions rather than machine learning models that typically require training sets. The 82 specimens were used for the performance comparison.

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

As there's no mention of a traditional "training set" in the machine learning sense, this question is not applicable. The device's calibration involves "several different serum references of known antibody activity" to generate a reference curve, but this is part of the assay's operational setup rather than a training set for an algorithm. The "known antibody activity" in these calibrators would be established through a separate, highly controlled process, likely traceable to international standards (like WHO 66/387 mentioned for the calibrators).

Ask a specific question about this device