Search Results

The Trinity Biotech Captia™ Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA kit is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for the qualitative presumptive detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. This ELISA should be used for patients with signs and symptoms that are consistent with Lyme disease. Equivocal or positive results must be supplemented by testing with a standardized Western blot procedure. Positive supplemental results are supportive evidence of exposure to B. burgdorferi and can be used to support a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA kit is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for the qualitative presumptive detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. This ELISA should only be used for patients with signs and symptoms that are consistent with Lyme disease. Equivocal or positive results must be supplemented by testing with a standardized Western blot procedure. Positive supplemental results are supportive evidence of exposure to B. burgendorferi and can be used to support a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA test is an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay to detect IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Purified Borrelia burgdorferi antigen is attached to a solid phase microtiter well. Pretreated test sera is added to each well. If the antibodies are present that recognize the antigen, they will bind to the antigen in the well. After incubation, the wells are washed to remove unbound antibody. An enzyme labeled anti-human IgM is added to each well. If antibody is present it will bind to the antibody attached to the antigen on the well. After incubation, the wells are washed to remove unbound conjugate. A substrate solution is added to each well. If enzyme is present the substrate will undergo a color change. After an incubation period, the reaction is stopped and the color intensity is measured photometrically, producing an indirect measurement of specific antibody in the patient specimen.

The provided document describes the Trinity Biotech Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA Test Kit, an immunoassay for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi (the causative agent of Lyme disease) in human serum.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the studies performed:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "The device must achieve X sensitivity and Y specificity"). Instead, it presents performance characteristics from comparative studies against clinical diagnosis and a predicate device (BioWhittaker's Lyme M STAT test) combined with Western Blot confirmation.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria (inferred from context and comparison to predicate):

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

• Study 1 (CDC Lyme Disease Serum Panel):
  • Sample Size: 47 serum samples (5 normals, 5 <1 month, 10 1-2 months, 19 3-12 months, 8 >1 year post-onset).
  • Data Provenance: From the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). This suggests the data is likely retrospective, as it's a "panel obtained from the CDC." The country of origin is the USA.
• Study 2 (Comparative Effectiveness with Predicate):
  • Sample Size: 176 sera.
  • Data Provenance: From patients submitted to a large clinical lab for B. burgdorferi antibody testing. This suggests the data is retrospective, collected from existing patient samples. The country of origin is not explicitly stated but implied to be the USA given the context of the submission.

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

• Study 1 (CDC Lyme Disease Serum Panel): The ground truth is described as "clinical diagnosis" and the panel samples were "masked, characterized serum panel." While the document doesn't specify the exact number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing the clinical diagnosis for this CDC panel, CDC panels are typically established by expert consensus of clinicians and specialists in infectious diseases, based on a comprehensive review of clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory data.
• Study 2 (Comparative Effectiveness with Predicate): The ground truth for this study was established by Mardx Diagnostics Western Blot for both IgG and IgM for any serum found positive or equivocal by either ELISA. This is a laboratory-based gold standard, not directly established by medical experts in this context.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Study 1 (CDC Lyme Disease Serum Panel): "Because the equivocals would have been tested by immunoblotting in a 2-step test system, they were considered 1-step positive for purposes of calculating % agreement." This indicates a specific rule for handling equivocal results in the calculation, rather than a multi-reader/multi-expert adjudication.
• Study 2 (Comparative Effectiveness with Predicate): Equivocal or positive ELISA results were further tested by Western Blot. There's no mention of adjudication between multiple readers for the Western Blot results; the Western Blot itself served as the confirmatory method.

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 explicitly stated or described. The studies focus on device performance (ELISA) against a clinical diagnosis panel or a predicate device and Western Blot, not on the impact of the device on human reader performance.

6. If a Standalone Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was Done:

Yes, the studies presented are primarily standalone performance evaluations of the ELISA kit. The ELISA kit generates a quantitative result which is then interpreted qualitatively (positive, equivocal, negative). This process does not involve human interpretation within a diagnostic workflow that the device is assisting, but rather the device itself provides the result.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Study 1: Clinical Diagnosis (from the CDC panel).
• Study 2: Western Blot (laboratory-based gold standard).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not provide information regarding a "training set" or its size. This is typical for traditional in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device submissions (like an ELISA kit), where the device development process might involve internal optimization and validation, but not a formally separate "training set" and "test set" in the same way as machine learning or AI algorithm development. The studies presented are "test set" or "validation set" studies for the final device.

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

As no training set is described, this question is not applicable to the provided information.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA kit is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for the qualitative presumptive detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. This ELISA should only be used for patients with signs and symptoms that are consistent with Lyme disease. Equivocal or positive results must be supplemented by testing with a standardized Western blot procedure. Positive supplemental results are supportive evidence of exposure to B. burgdorferi and can be used to support a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA test is an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay to detect IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Purified Borrelia burgdorferi antigen is attached to a solid phase microtiter well. Pretreated test sera is added to each well. If the antibodies are present that recognize the antigen, they will bind to the antigen in the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound antibody. An enzyme labeled anti-human IgM is added to each well. If antibody is present it will bind to the antibody attached to the antigen on the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound conjugate. A substrate solution is added to each well. If enzyme is present the substrate will undergo a color change. After an incubation period the reaction is stopped and the color intensity is measured photometrically, producing an indirect measurement of specific antibody in the patient specimen.

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding the Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA Test Kit, structured according to your request.

Device Name: Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA Test Kit

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

It's important to note that the provided documents do not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as clear pass/fail thresholds. Instead, they present performance characteristics from various studies. Based on the provided data, I have inferred what could be considered the reported performance of the device in these studies.

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

• Study 1 (CDC Lyme Disease Serum Panel):
  • Sample Size: 47 serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Obtained from the CDC, characterized (masked), origin not specified, but typically such panels would represent a diverse set of patients. This is likely a retrospective panel.
• Study 2 (Clinical Lab Sera):
  • Sample Size: 176 fresh sera.
  • Data Provenance: Patients from a "large clinical lab" submitted for B. burgdorferi antibody testing. The term "fresh sera" suggests a more prospective collection in a clinical setting at that time. The country of origin is not specified but is implied to be within the US given the submission to the FDA.
• Study 3 (Precision Study):
  • Sample Size: 7 sera, each assayed 10 times, on 3 different assays, at 2 different sites. This implies 7 * 10 * 3 * 2 = 420 individual tests for the 7 sera. Additionally, HP, LP, NC had n=12 (per site), and Cal had n=36 (per site). Total of 492 determinations.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but likely laboratory-prepared samples / controls.
• Study 4 (Cross-Reactivity):
  • Sample Size: 53 samples (5 Lipemic, 5 Bilirubinemic, 10 RPR+, 8 RF+, 7 EBV+, 6 CMV+, 4 RMS+, 5 CRP+, 10 Elevated ESR, 16 dsDNA+).
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but these would be known positive samples for the interfering substances. Likely retrospective collection from various sources.

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

• Study 1 (CDC Lyme Disease Panel): The ground truth is referred to as "Clinical Diagnosis." The information doesn't specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing these clinical diagnoses for the CDC panel. It is implied that the panel had a pre-established characterization based on clinical criteria and likely expert review.
• Study 2 (Clinical Lab Sera):
  • The ground truth for this study was established using Western Blot (Mardx Diagnostics Western Blot on both IgG and IgM) for any serum found positive or equivocal by ELISA.
  • The document does not specify the number of experts, if any, involved in interpreting these Western Blots or in establishing the initial clinical diagnoses for these 176 fresh sera. Western blot interpretation itself often relies on established guidelines, which may implicitly incorporate expert consensus.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 consensus) for establishing the ground truth definitions in any of the studies.
• For Study 1, the "Clinical Diagnosis" assigned to the CDC panel samples serves as the ground truth.
• For Study 2, Western Blot results were used as a confirmatory "ground truth" for positive/equivocal ELISA samples. This is a technical adjudication rather than a human consensus adjudication on images.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed.
• This device is an ELISA lab test kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply here.

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

• Yes, the performance presented for the Wampole Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA is a standalone performance of the test kit itself. It measures the direct output of the assay ("positive", "equivocal", "negative") based on antibody detection.
• The human role is in performing the lab procedure, reading the photometric results, and interpreting those results based on the kit's cut-offs, but the core "decision" of the assay (antibody presence) is algorithmic based on chemical reactions and optical density.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• Study 1 (CDC Panel): "Clinical Diagnosis" stratified by time after onset. This implicitly involves expert clinical judgment and the patient's presentation/history.
• Study 2 (Clinical Lab Sera): Western blot results (IgM and IgG) for samples that were positive or equivocal by ELISA. This is a higher-tier laboratory confirmatory test.
• It's important to note that the ELISA kit itself is for "qualitative presumptive detection" and "equivocal or positive results must be supplemented by testing with a standardized Western blot procedure," indicating the regulatory recognition of Western Blot as a more definitive confirmatory step in the diagnostic pathway.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The document does not provide information about a separate "training set" for the device. This is typical for traditional ELISA kits, which are based on biochemical principles and established reagent formulations rather than machine learning algorithms that require explicit training data. The development and optimization of the assay would have involved various internal sample testing, but this wouldn't be referred to as a "training set" in the context of AI.

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

• As there's no mention of a "training set" in the context of the device being an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not applicable. The development of the ELISA kit would have relied on known positive and negative controls, and extensive R&D, rather than a training set with established ground truth in the AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device