Search Results

The Randox Laboratories Limited Direct HDL - C Test Kit is an in vitro diagnostic reagent for the quantitative determination of HDL - C in serum or plasma. This method measures HDL - C directly without the need for a separate precipitation step. An inverse relationship has been found to exist between HDL - C levels and the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD). The importance of HDL - C as a risk factor for CHD is now recognised.

Not Found

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "Boehringer Mannheim Direct HDL-Cholesterol" device (K970735). It establishes substantial equivalence to a predicate device, allowing it to be marketed. However, this document does not contain the specific details of acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The letter only indicates regulatory clearance, not the underlying performance study details.

To answer your request, I would need a different type of document, such as:

• A summary of safety and effectiveness (SSE) from the 510(k) submission.
• The actual study report submitted to the FDA.
• Published literature detailing the validation of the device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Boehringer Mannheim Direct HDL is intended for the quantitative determination of high-density lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C) in serum and plasma.

The Direct HDL test principle use PEG-modified enzymes and sulfated cyclodextrin. When cholesterol esterase and cholesterol oxidase enzymes are modified by PEG, they show selective catalytic activities toward lipoprotein fractions, with the rectivity increasing in the order LDL

While the provided text describes the device and some performance characteristics, it does not explicitly state acceptance criteria or a dedicated study designed to prove the device meets those criteria in a formal sense. The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, we can infer "acceptance criteria" and "performance" from the "Comparison to predicate device" section, as the document aims to show similar or better performance compared to the predicate. The "Method Comparison" section acts as the study to support this claim.

Here's an attempt to structure the information based on your request, highlighting where information is inferred or missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Inferred Acceptance Criteria: The device should perform comparably to the predicate devices (Boehringer Mannheim HDL Cholesterol liquid and powder) in terms of linearity, lower detection limit, and method comparison, and show acceptable interference levels. The specific numerical thresholds for "acceptance" are not explicitly stated, but are implied by the comparison to the predicate.

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

• Sample Size for Method Comparison (Test Set):
  • Versus HDL Cholesterol liquid: 110 samples
  • Versus HDL Cholesterol powder: 75 samples
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). This is common for 510(k) summaries from this era, where the focus is on performance data rather than study design details. It is highly likely this was prospective testing within the manufacturer's labs or collaborating sites.

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

• Not applicable / Not stated: This type of information is generally relevant for studies involving human interpretation (e.g., image analysis). For a laboratory diagnostic device measuring a chemical analyte, the "ground truth" is established by the reference method (the predicate device in this case), not by expert consensus on interpretations.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable / Not stated: See #3. Adjudication is not typically relevant for quantitative chemical assays where results are direct measurements.

5. 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

• No: This is a laboratory diagnostic device for measuring HDL-Cholesterol, not an AI or imaging device involving human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant.

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

• Standalone Performance Implied: The device itself performs the measurement. The "Method Comparison" section effectively demonstrates its standalone performance against established methods. There isn't an "algorithm only" as defined for AI, but the device operates independently.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Reference Method Comparison: The "ground truth" for the method comparison study was the results obtained from the predicate devices:
  • Boehringer Mannheim HDL Cholesterol liquid
  • Boehringer Mannheim HDL Cholesterol powder
    This means the performance of the new device was compared against existing, accepted methods.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable / Not stated: For a deterministic chemical assay like this, there isn't a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is developed based on chemical principles and reagent characteristics, not trained on a dataset.

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

• Not applicable / Not stated: See #8.

Ask a specific question about this device