Search Results

The Gold Standard Diagnostics Borrelia burgdorferi B31 IgM Line Blot Test Kit is intended for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to B. burgdorferi sensu stricto (B31) in human serum. This test is intended for use in testing human serum samples which have been found positive or equivocal using an ELISA or IFA test procedure to provide supportive evidence of infection with B. burgdorferi.

The assay requires a total of 70 minutes incubation time. The test uses purified antigens coated on nitrocellulose strips. Serum sample is added to each strip and incubated for 30 minutes. If Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies are present they will bind to the antigens on the strips. Unbound serum is removed by washing the wells three times. An enzyme-conjugated anti-human IgM is then added to each strip and incubated for 30 minutes. It will bind to the any antibody that was attached to the antigen on the strip. The wells are again washed three times followed by a DI water wash to remove any unbound conjugate. After unbound conjugate has been removed by a further washing step, a visualization of the antigenantibody-antibody complex is accomplished by the addition of a substrate which forms blue-violet precipitates at each site (antigen bands). The reaction is stopped by washing the nitrocellulose strip with distilled or deionized water. Depending on the observed band pattern one can interpret the presence or absence of specific IgM antibodies to B. burgdorferi infection.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, outlining the acceptance criteria and study details for the Borrelia burgdorferi IgM B31 Line Blot Test Kit:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the performance of the predicate device and the comparison studies. For some metrics, the specific numerical targets for acceptance are stated (e.g., 95% positivity for low positive samples in reproducibility).

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Reproducibility: 4 samples (negative, high negative, low positive, moderate positive), each tested in triplicate for 5 days, twice a day (90 data points per sample).
   • Cross-Reactivity: 215 specimens from patients known to have potentially cross-reactive antibodies or diagnoses mistaken for Lyme disease.
   • Interfering Substances: 6 sera (2 positive, 1 low positive, 1 high negative, 2 negative).
   • Specimen Collection and Handling: 3 samples tested in triplicate.
   • Clinical Sensitivity: 100 clinically characterized samples (40 early, 20 disseminated, 40 late stage Lyme disease).
   • Analytical Specificity: 234 asymptomatic samples (115 endemic, 119 non-endemic regions).
   • CDC Reference Panel: 40 samples (5 healthy, 15 early, 13 intermediate, 7 late).
   • Method Comparison (Prospective Clinical Study): 310 samples after initial ELISA/IFA screening.
   • Data Provenance:
     • Clinical Sensitivity samples: Obtained from Allen C. Steere, MD at the Massachusetts General Hospital (USA).
     • Analytical Specificity samples: From endemic and non-endemic regions (specific countries not mentioned, but implies US and potentially other regions).
     • CDC Reference Panel: Provided by the Center of Disease Control (USA).
     • Method Comparison samples: Collected from three different geographic sites in the U.S. (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and California).
     • Overall, the data is retrospective and prospective, primarily from the United States.

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

   • The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for the test set.
   • For Clinical Sensitivity, samples were "clinically characterized" from a physician (Allen C. Steere, MD), suggesting medical diagnosis and potentially expert consensus, but the process is not detailed.
   • For the CDC Reference Panel, the CDC itself established the categorization, implying a high level of expert consensus and standardized classification.
   • For the Method Comparison, initial positive/equivocal ELISA/IFA results were used as a pre-screen, and then tests against a predicate device and a second commercially available assay were used to resolve discrepancies and establish comparative "ground truth" relative to existing methods.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document specifies an adjudication step for the Method Comparison study: "The discrepant samples were tested on a second commercially available assay." This suggests a mechanism to resolve differences between the new device and the predicate by consulting a third, independent test, which acts as a form of adjudication. The specific rules (e.g., 2+1) are not explicitly stated, but the process of using a second assay for discrepancies implies a form of resolution.
   • For other studies, explicit adjudication methods are not detailed.

4. 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:

   • This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit for detecting antibodies, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool. Therefore, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study focusing on human reader performance with or without AI assistance is not applicable to this device.

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

   • This is an antibody detection kit. The "performance" is the detection of specific antibody bands on a nitrocellulose strip, which is then interpreted. The kit itself operates as a "standalone" chemical assay. While human eyes read the bands, the core performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) directly reflect the kit's analytical capabilities without an "algorithm only" vs. "human-in-the-loop" distinction in the context of AI. The interpretation is visual, and the consistency of that visual interpretation is assessed through reproducibility studies involving multiple technicians.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Clinical Sensitivity: "Clinically characterized samples" from a medical expert (Allen C. Steere, MD at Massachusetts General Hospital) implies a clinical diagnosis/outcome as ground truth, likely based on patient history, symptoms, and other diagnostic tests.
   • CDC Reference Panel: Categorization by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), which likely relies on a combination of clinical criteria, confirmed infections, and perhaps other established laboratory methods, representing a highly authoritative expert consensus.
   • Method Comparison: Ground truth for comparison was established by agreement with a predicate legally marketed device (Trinity Biotech B. burgdorferi (IgM) Marblot Strip Test System) and further adjudicated by a second commercially available assay for discrepant results. This is a form of comparison to an established method/reference standard.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not explicitly stated. This is a chemical assay kit, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" in the traditional computational sense. The "development" and "optimization" of such a kit would involve testing various antigen preparations, conjugate concentrations, and protocols, but this isn't typically referred to as a "training set" for an algorithm.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. As the device is not an AI/ML model, there is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth establishment in that context.

Ask a specific question about this device