Search Results

For in vitro diagnostic use with the CARESIDE Analyzer to measure LDH activity from anti-coagulated whole blood, serum or plasma specimens to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with certain liver diseases, heart diseases, and tumors of the lung, kidneys, and liver.

Device Description

CARESIDE LDH cartridges are used with the CARESIDE, Inc. CARESIDE Analyzer to measure LDH activity in anti-coagulated whole blood, serum or plasma specimens. The CARESIDE LDH cartridge, a single use disposable in vitro diagnostic test cartridge, delivers a measured volume of serum or plasma to a dry film to initiate the measurement of LDH activity. The patented film cartridge contains all reagents necessary to measure LDH activity.

AI/ML Overview

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the CARESIDE LDH device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Performance Characteristic	Acceptance Criteria (Implicit, based on predicate)	Reported CARESIDE LDH Performance	Predicate Device (Vitros LDH DT Slides) Performance
Detection Limit	Not explicitly stated, implied to be comparable to predicate or better	50 U/L	100 U/L
Reportable Range	Not explicitly stated, implied to be clinically useful	50 - 650 U/L	100 - 1750 U/L
Recovery	Not explicitly stated (predicate data not available)	Mean: 103%	Not available
Linearity	Acceptable slope and correlation coefficient	Yielded slope and correlation coefficient within acceptable limits	Not available
Interference	No significant interference at specified concentrations	No significant interference observed at tested concentrations of interferents: Ascorbic Acid: 20 mg/dL, Bilirubin: 20 mg/dL, Triglycerides: 3000 mg/dL	Not available
Precision (Total CV)	Not explicitly stated, implied to be clinically acceptable	335 U/L, 7.2%	649 U/L, 2.9%
Relative Accuracy	High correlation and minimal bias to a reference method (BM/Hitachi 902)	Careside = 0.97 (BM/Hitachi 902) + 9.1 U/L, r = 0.99	Not available

Study Information

Sample sizes used for the test set and data provenance:
- The document does not explicitly state the sample size for the test set used for the performance characteristics reported (Detection Limit, Reportable Range, Recovery, Linearity, Interference, Precision, Relative Accuracy).
- The document does not explicitly state the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) for the test set. It can be inferred that the testing was performed by the manufacturer, CARESIDE, Inc., prior to submission.
Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- This information is not provided in the document. The performance characteristics seem to be based on laboratory measurements against reference instruments or calibrated standards rather than expert consensus on diagnostic images or clinical outcomes.
Adjudication method for the test set:
- This information is not applicable or provided. The performance assessment for this in vitro diagnostic device does not involve adjudication by multiple experts in the way clinical diagnostic imaging studies might.
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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool for human readers.
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- Yes, the reported performance characteristics (Detection Limit, Reportable Range, Recovery, Linearity, Interference, Precision, Relative Accuracy) likely represent the standalone performance of the CARESIDE LDH system (cartridge + analyzer) as an in vitro diagnostic test. There is no human-in-the-loop component in the analytical measurement itself; the analyzer quantifies LDH activity.
The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
- The ground truth for the analytical performance appears to be established through:
  - Reference Methods/Instruments: For relative accuracy, it was compared to a "BM/Hitachi 902" analyzer.
  - Calibrated Standards: Linearity and recovery assays typically use samples with known, precisely measured concentrations.
  - Controlled Samples: Interference studies use samples spiked with known interferents at specific concentrations.
The sample size for the training set:
- The document does not directly mention a "training set" in the context of an AI/algorithm. For an in vitro diagnostic device like this, method development and calibration would be performed using various samples, but these are not typically referred to as a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device uses lot-specific standard curves, which are established during manufacturing.
How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable as there isn't a "training set" for an AI algorithm. For the device's internal calibration, the instrument uses "lot-specific standard curve" information, which is "bar-coded on each cartridge." This implies that during the manufacturing of each batch (lot) of cartridges, their performance is characterized against known standards to create a unique calibration curve that ensures accurate readings for that specific lot.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1