Search Results

The ASiManager-AT is intended to be used as an integrated digital particle analyzer to objectively interpret the ASI RPR Card Test for Syphilis. The ASiManager-AT is designed to provide standardized test interpretation, an initial predictive titer analysis, and provides for storage, retrieval, and transmittal of the test results. It is intended to be acquired, possessed and used only by health care professionals. For in vitro Diagnostic Use Only, not intended for screening blood and tissue donors.

Device Description

The ASiManager-AT is an integrated digital particle analyzer designed to objectively interpret certain slide agglutination tests manufactured by Arlington Scientific Inc. (ASI). Qualitative and semiquantitative tests are performed by laboratory professionals who use the ASiManager-AT to provide standardized test interpretation using criteria that define reactive and nonreactive agglutination reactions. The ASiManager-AT also delivers an initial predictive titer analysis for the ASI RPR Card Test for Syphilis.
The ASiManager-AT employs a CCD (charge-coupled device) camera that uses light reflectance to create a highly sensitive and high-resolution image of the agglutination immunoassay. This image is then analyzed by the proprietary software algorithm to interpret the agglutination pattern.
The ASiManager-AT further provides tools that enable the creation, storage. retrieval and transmittal of the test results.

AI/ML Overview

The ASiManager-AT device is an integrated digital particle analyzer designed to objectively interpret the ASI RPR Card Test for Syphilis, provide standardized test interpretation, an initial predictive titer analysis, and manage test results.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Performance Metric	Acceptance Criteria (Stated or Implied)	Reported Device Performance
Qualitative Interpretation	Substantial equivalence to visual interpretation by trained laboratory professionals. Implied high agreement rates for reactive and nonreactive samples.	Prospective: 100% positive agreement (reactive), 100% negative agreement (nonreactive) (375 samples).
Retrospective: 98.4% positive agreement (reactive), 95.5% negative agreement (nonreactive) (3131 samples).
Predictive Titer Analysis (Initial)	Within ±1 dilution of visual interpretation.	93.6% concordance (1146 out of 1224 reactive samples).
Endpoint Titer Determination	Within ±1 dilution of visual interpretation.	98.9% concordance (700 out of 708 reactive samples).

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

Qualitative Interpretation:
- Prospective study: 375 samples.
- Retrospective study: 3131 samples.
Predictive Titer Analysis: 1224 reactive samples (a subset of the 1849 reactive samples from qualitative testing).
Endpoint Titer Determination: 708 reactive samples (a subset of the 1849 reactive samples from qualitative testing).

The document states that the data are "results from three testing sites." It doesn't specify the country of origin. The test sets were a mix of prospective (375 samples) and retrospective (3131 samples) data for qualitative interpretation.

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

The ground truth was established by "trained laboratory professionals" performing "visual interpretation." The document does not specify the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly state an adjudication method (like 2+1, 3+1). It describes a comparison between the ASiManager-AT's digital results and "visual interpretation" by trained laboratory professionals, implying that the visual interpretation served as the primary reference or ground truth for comparison.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs Without AI Assistance

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done in the context of human readers with AI assistance versus without AI assistance. The study compares the device's performance against human visual interpretation (the ground truth), not how the device assists human readers to improve their performance. The device is described as providing "standardized test interpretation," suggesting it's designed to replace or provide an objective alternative to subjective visual interpretation.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, the studies described are essentially standalone performance studies for the ASiManager-AT device. The device's proprietary software algorithm interprets the agglutination pattern and determines results independently, which are then compared to the ground truth established by human visual interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was expert visual interpretation by "trained laboratory professionals."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about the sample size used for the training set of the ASiManager-AT's proprietary software algorithm. It only details the performance studies for validation.

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

The document does not provide information on how the ground truth for the training set was established. It only mentions that the ASiManager-AT uses a "proprietary software algorithm" that interprets the agglutination pattern based on "criteria that define reactive and nonreactive agglutination reactions." This implies that historical data, expert knowledge, or other methods were used to train the algorithm and define these criteria.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1