Search Results

The AZOG hCG One-Step (Urine) Pregnancy Home Test (DipStick, Cassette and Midstream) is a rapid chromatographic immunoassay for the qualitative detection of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in urine to aid in the early detection of pregnancy at home.

AZOG, Inc. hCG One-Step Urine Home Pregnancy Test (DipStick, Cassette and Midstream) are intended for the qualitative determination of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) in urine. The Test is for the early detection of pregnancy.

The AZOG hCG One-Step Urine Pregnancy Home Test (Urine) is a rapid chromatographic immunoassay for the qualitative detection of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in urine to aid in the early detection of pregnancy. The test utilizes a combination of antibodies including a monoclonal hCG antibody to selectively detect elevated levels of hCG. The assay is conducted by adding urine into the sample well of the device and observing the formation of colored lines. The specimen migrates via capillary action along the membrane to react with the colored conjugate.

Positive specimens react with the specific antibody-hCG-colored conjugate to form a colored line at the test line region of the membrane. Absence of this colored line suggests a negative result. To serve as a procedural control, a colored line will always appear at the control line region if the test has been performed properly.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the AZOG, Inc. hCG One-Step Urine Pregnancy Home Test:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

This document primarily describes correlative and analytical studies, not a clinical effectiveness study.

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

• Correlation Study: 310 urine specimens.
• Assay Precision/Tolerance, Sensitivity, Specificity, Interference Studies: The document refers to "a panel of 3 coded specimens" for precision testing (negative, low positive, high positive) and does not specify a separate sample size for the sensitivity, specificity, and interference studies, but implies these were conducted in a laboratory setting using controlled samples.
• Data Provenance: Not specified, but the context of an FDA 510(k) submission suggests in-house laboratory testing rather than data from diverse countries or retrospective patient cohorts from clinics. These are likely prospective, controlled laboratory studies.

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

• Correlation Study: The "ground truth" for the correlation study was established by results obtained from a "similar device" (a legally marketed predicate device). No experts are explicitly mentioned for ground truth establishment for this comparison.
• Analytical Studies (Sensitivity, Specificity, Interference): The "ground truth" for these analytical studies was based on the known concentrations of hCG, LH, FSH, TSH, and interfering substances in the prepared samples. This does not involve human expert interpretation of results.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• No adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is mentioned, as these studies primarily involve direct comparison to reference methods or known concentrations, rather than human interpretation requiring consensus.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly described. The studies focused on the analytical performance of the device and its correlation with a similar existing device. There is no information about human readers or their improvement with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance)

• Yes, the studies described are essentially standalone performance studies for the device (an immunoassay, not an algorithm in the AI sense). The device's performance, such as its ability to detect hCG at a certain level, its specificity, and its agreement with another device, is evaluated without human interpretation influencing the device's direct output. The test itself provides a visual result (colored lines) that a user then interprets.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Correlation Study: The "ground truth" was the results obtained from a similar legally marketed predicate device.
• Sensitivity, Specificity, and Interference Studies: The "ground truth" was based on known, controlled concentrations of the target analyte (hCG) and other substances (LH, FSH, TSH, interfering substances) in the prepared urine specimens. These are laboratory-derived ground truths.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a training set sample size. This is common for traditional immunoassay device submissions, as the "training" (development and optimization) of such devices often involves iterative lab testing and formulation adjustments rather than a distinct, quantifiable "training set" like in machine learning. The studies described are for validation of the finalized device.

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

• As a training set is not explicitly mentioned in the context of this traditional immunoassay device, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not detailed. The development process would have involved establishing the analytical accuracy of different formulations and reagent concentrations against known hCG standards to optimize the device's performance characteristics.

Ask a specific question about this device