Search Results

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: Methamphetamine, THC and Opiates

Immunoassay for the Qualitative Detection of Methamphetamine, THC and Opiates in Urine.

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

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

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size for the test set. It mentions "clinical sample correlation study" and "blind labeled spiked study." It also notes "clinical studies, performed at two independent laboratories."

• Sample Size: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: Clinical specimens were used for the correlation studies. The clinical studies were performed at "two independent laboratories," suggesting external, potentially prospective data, though this is not explicitly stated. The "blind labeled spiked study" would involve controlled samples, likely prepared in a laboratory setting. The location of the clinical specimens is not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts. However, it indicates ground truth was established by:

• Comparison to the Behring EMIT II (another commercial immunoassay device).
• GC/MS methodology (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry), which is a "gold standard" analytical method for drug detection.
• "Professional users" and "lay users" were involved in the evaluation of the device performance, but not in establishing the ground truth methodology itself, beyond their correct application of the test.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document does not mention an adjudication method for the test set. Ground truth was established by comparison to other validated methods (Behring EMIT II and GC/MS).

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study focused on the device's performance against established methods, and its accuracy in the hands of both professional and lay users, rather than comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

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

This device is an "At Home Drug Test" using "visual color sandwich one step immunoassay technology." It's a qualitative immunoassay. The performance described is inherently a "standalone" or "algorithm-only" performance in the sense that the test itself (the immunoassay) provides the direct result, which is then interpreted by a human (professional or lay user). There isn't an "algorithm" separate from the immunoassay technology that would then require human interpretation in a human-in-the-loop scenario. The "human-in-the-loop" aspect is the visual interpretation of the color change, not an AI algorithm generating a result that a human then reviews.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth was established by:

• Reference Device Comparison: Behring EMIT II (a predicate immunoassay device).
• Gold Standard Analytical Method: GC/MS methodology.
• Spiked Samples: For the "blind labeled spiked study," the ground truth would be the known concentration of drugs added to the samples.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The device is an immunoassay, which does not typically involve traditional machine learning training sets in its development or validation as described here. The "training" in this context refers more to the development and optimization of the immunoassay reagents and design rather than algorithm training.

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

As there's no explicitly mentioned machine learning "training set," this question is not directly applicable. If we consider the development of the immunoassay itself, the "ground truth" during its development would have been established through laboratory experiments using known concentrations of target drugs/metabolites, similar to how spiked samples are used in validation.

Ask a specific question about this device