Search Results

Architect Folate MasterCheck is intended for use in the verification of sensitivity, calibration linearity, and reportable range of the Folate assay on the Abbott Architect i System.

Architect Folate MasterCheck Level 0 contains boratc buffer. Architect Folate MasterCheck Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 contain pteroyIglutamic acid (PGA) prepared in citrate buffer with protein (bovine) stabilizers. Preservative: Antimicrobial Agent.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Bio-Rad Architect Folate MasterCheck, an in vitro diagnostic device. This type of document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than detailing extensive clinical study results for novel device performance. Therefore, many of the requested elements for a typical medical device study, particularly those related to human readers, experts, training sets, and complex performance metrics like AUC or effect sizes, are not directly applicable or available in this specific document.

The document primarily describes the device, its intended use, and compares its technological characteristics to a predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based on the provided text, while acknowledging the limitations of this type of regulatory submission:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The concept of "acceptance criteria" for a novel device's performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) is not explicitly detailed in the way one might expect for a new diagnostic algorithm. Instead, the "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly related to demonstrating that the Architect Folate MasterCheck maintains fundamental characteristics (like intended use, form, matrix, storage, and analytes) that are substantially equivalent to the Casco Standards Document Serum Multi-Analyte Verification Test Set. The "performance" described pertains to its functional role as a calibration verifier.

The document does not provide specific numerical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, or AUC) for the Architect Folate MasterCheck in the context of diagnosing a condition. Instead, its performance is described in terms of its intended function: "verification of sensitivity, calibration linearity, and reportable range of the Folate assay on the Abbott Architect i System." Since it's a control/verifier and not a diagnostic device itself, the "reported device performance" is its formulation and its intended functional use matching that of a predicate.

Study Proving Acceptance Criteria:

The "study" referenced is the 510(k) submission itself, which presents information to the FDA to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This is a regulatory pathway, not a traditional clinical trial designed to prove device performance against a gold standard for a diagnostic claim. The document highlights the similarities and differences, arguing that the differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: This information is not provided in a way that aligns with a typical "test set" for performance evaluation of a diagnostic algorithm. The document describes the composition of Architect Folate MasterCheck (Level 0 and Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4) which contains specific components (borate buffer, pteroylglutamic acid, citrate buffer with bovine protein stabilizers). No specific sample size (i.e., number of biological samples or measurements) is given for a "test set" for performance in the diagnostic sense. The comparison is primarily about the product's chemical and physical characteristics and intended use. The data provenance is not specified, as it's a product description and comparison.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This document does not describe the establishment of ground truth for a diagnostic performance test set, as the device is a control/verifier, not a diagnostic test.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. This concept applies to human-read diagnostic studies, which this is not.

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: Not applicable. This device is an in vitro diagnostic control/verifier. It does not involve human readers for interpretation, nor does it incorporate AI.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based device.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device would be its certified concentrations of Folate, which are established during manufacturing for its role as a control/calibrator, not clinical ground truth for a disease state.

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device