Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

A home drug screening, and if needed, confirmation service. This kit provides a preliminary result for the detection/presence of the following drugs of abuse in urine: Cocaine (benzoylecgonine).

The At Home Drug Test is a rapid, qualitative immunoassay for the detection of the target drugs/drug metabolites in urine. The cut-off concentration for this test is as follows: Cocaine (benzoylecgonine): 300 ng/ml. This assay is intended for use in the home to assist in the prevention of drug abuse. This kit is designed to incorporate a mechanism for anonymous confirmation testing to be performed at a certified laboratory. The At Home Drug Test, like many commercially available drug screening test kits, qualitatively measures the presence of target drugs or their metabolites by visual color sandwich one step immunoassay technology.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Device: At Home Drug Test (Model 9073)
Intended Use: Rapid, qualitative immunoassay for the detection of Cocaine (benzoylecgonine) in urine, intended for home use to assist in the prevention of drug abuse, with a mechanism for anonymous confirmation testing.
Target Analyte & Cut-off: Cocaine (benzoylecgonine): 300 ng/ml

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the reported performance benchmarks for "excellent overall accuracy" and "correlation" to established methods.

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

The text describes three main types of studies:

• Clinical Sample Correlation Study:

  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated, but implicitly a sufficient number of clinical specimens to achieve >98% correlation.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). It used "clinical specimens," suggesting real-world samples. The study involved "two independent laboratories," implying a multi-site approach. The study compared the device to Behring EMIT II (Cupertino, CA 95014) and GC/MS methodology, which are established laboratory methods.
  • Nature: Retrospective, as it used existing "clinical specimens."

• Blind Labeled Spiked Study:

  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but involved "spiked" samples, meaning known concentrations of the drug were added to urine.
  • Nature: Prospective (controlled experimental conditions).

• Consumer Study (Lay Users):

  • Sample Size: 4715 total interpretations across all drugs, with 943 interpretations for Cocaine specific accuracy.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin), but it involved "lay users," suggesting a broader consumer population.
  • Nature: Prospective, simulating home-use conditions.

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

• Clinical Sample Correlation Study: The ground truth was established by Behring EMIT II and GC/MS methodology. These are considered gold standard laboratory methods for drug detection. The "experts" in this context would be the laboratory personnel operating and interpreting these instruments, assumed to be qualified professionals in clinical chemistry/toxicology, but their specific number or qualifications are not provided in the summary.
• Blind Labeled Spiked Study: The ground truth was established by the known concentration of the spiked samples. No human expert interpretation was needed to establish the ground truth for spiked samples, as the concentration is predetermined.
• Consumer Study: The ground truth likely derived from the results obtained by "professional users" (as mentioned in a separate phase of the evaluation) or from laboratory confirmation (e.g., GC/MS) of the samples used in the consumer study. The summary doesn't explicitly state how the ground truth for the consumer study was established, but it would logically be based on a definitive laboratory method rather than expert consensus on the device's reading itself.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Clinical Sample Correlation Study: Not explicitly an "adjudication" in the typical sense of multiple human readers resolving disagreements. Instead, the device's results were correlated directly with the results from two established analytical methods (Behring EMIT II and GC/MS). Discrepancies would likely be investigated, but the primary method is direct comparison.
• Blind Labeled Spiked Study: No adjudication method described as the ground truth is simply the known spiked concentration.
• Consumer Study: The summary does not describe any specific adjudication method for reconciling consumer interpretations or establishing a gold standard for discrepancies. The accuracy figures are reported directly from the consumer interpretations against the assumed true positive/negative status of the samples.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study, in the sense of comparing human readers' performance with and without AI assistance, was not done. This device is a standalone diagnostic kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. It does involve multiple "readers" (professional users and lay users) but not in a comparative effectiveness setup with/without AI.

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

Yes, the studies effectively evaluate the "standalone" performance of the device, although it's not an algorithm but a rapid immunoassay.

• The "clinical sample correlation study" and the "blind labeled spiked study" assess the device's ability to accurately detect the drug in samples against established laboratory methods or known concentrations, independent of human interpretation variability.
• The phase involving "professional users" is also a standalone assessment of the device's performance when used by trained personnel.
• The "consumer study" assesses the device's standalone performance including the human-in-the-loop (lay user interpretation) directly, which is crucial given its intended point-of-care, home-use application.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Expert Consensus: Not explicitly stated as the primary ground truth method.
• Pathology: Not applicable for a drug test.
• Outcomes Data: Not applicable for a drug test.
• Other:
  • Established Laboratory Methods: For the clinical correlation study, the ground truth was established by Behring EMIT II and GC/MS methodology, considered reference standards in toxicology.
  • Known Spiked Concentrations: For the blind labeled spiked study, the ground truth was the predetermined concentration of the drug in the spiked urine samples.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The provided text does not mention any training set or machine learning components. This device is described as an immunoassay, which is a chemical and biological test, not a software algorithm that requires a training set. Therefore, this question is not applicable to the information provided.

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

As there is no mention of a training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device