Search Results

The Chiron Diagnostics ACS:180 Myoglobin Assay is used for the quantitative determination of Myoglobin in serum or plasma and as an aid in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction using the Chiron Diagnostics ACS Automated Chemiluminescence Systems.

Myoglobin is a oxygen-binding, heme protein, found in cardiac and skeletal muscle. Myoglobin is noted for its rapid release into the circulation following tissue injury. Elevated levels of myoglobin can be found in conditions of muscle damage, such as acute and chronic skeletal muscle disease, renal failure, myocarditis, open-heart surgery, and after heavy exercise. Myoglobin releases into the circulation as early as 2 to 4 hours after cell damage, peaks at between 9 and 12 hours, and returns to normal within 24 to 36 hours. In the absence of skeletal muscle trauma, myoglobin has been used as an early indicator of myocardial infarction, and therefore as a rule out indicator. Myoglobin has a negative predictive value of 99%, which improves the rule out capabilities of the emergency department and helps reduce the number of patients inappropriately admitted to the Coronary Care Units with symptoms atypical of acute myocardial infarction. When used in combination with other cardiac markers such as CK-MB or cTnl, the ACS myoglobin assay is a valuable diagnostic tool to be used in the early evaluation of the potential acute myocardial infarction patient. The Chiron Diagnostics ACS:180 Myoglobin assay is a two-site sandwich immunoassay using direct chemiluminometric technology, which uses constant amounts of two antibodies. The first antibody, in the Lite Reagent, is a polyclonal goat anti-myoglobin antibody labeled with acridinium ester. The second antibody, in the Solid Phase, is a monoclonal mouse anti-myoglobin antibody covalently coupled to paramagnetic particles.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the KCN4325 device, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Note: The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" with predefined thresholds. Instead, it presents the results of performance studies that are implicitly accepted as demonstrating the device's suitability for its intended use, especially given the FDA's 510(k) clearance. The "Acceptance Standard" column is derived from the fact that the reported performance was deemed sufficient for regulatory approval.

Study Information

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

   • Reference Range: 703 serum and plasma samples from "apparently healthy individuals."
   • Method Comparison: 123 samples in the range of 27 to 957 ng/mL (μg/L).
   • Precision: 8 samples.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to be prospective as they were conducted to establish performance characteristics for the device's submission.

2. 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. For an immunoassay like this, the "ground truth" for method comparison would typically be the results from the predicate or established method itself, which would have its own validation. For reference ranges, the "truth" is the biological measurement in a healthy population.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable or not specified. This type of adjudication is more common in image-based diagnostic systems or clinical trials requiring expert consensus on complex findings. For a quantitative assay, the comparison is against another assay or a statistically derived range.

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:

   • No. This is an automated immunoassay for Myoglobin detection, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting images or complex data. Therefore, an MRMC study with human readers assisting AI is irrelevant.

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

   • The studies described (Reference Range, Analytical Sensitivity, Reportable Range, Method Comparison, Precision) are all standalone performance evaluations of the ACS:180 Myoglobin assay as an algorithm/device only. The "ACS Automated Chemiluminescence Systems" implies an automated, standalone operation without direct human intervention in the result generation after sample loading.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Reference Range: Biological measurements from a "healthy individual" population.
   • Analytical Sensitivity/Reportable Range: Defined by the assay's ability to statistically differentiate from a zero standard and measure within a calibrated range.
   • Method Comparison: Results from an "alternate myoglobin EIA method" (a predicate or established laboratory method).
   • Precision: Intrinsic variability of the assay itself, calculated from replicate measurements.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not specified. This document describes the performance studies for a diagnostic device prior to marketing. These assays are typically developed and calibrated by the manufacturer based on internal R&D, not a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The reported studies are more akin to validation or test sets.

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

   • Not applicable/Not specified. As mentioned above, a "training set" in the machine learning context is not directly referred to or implied for this type of immunoassay. The development and establishment of the assay's calibration curve and parameters (which could be considered analogous to a 'training phase' in a broad sense) would be based on the scientific principles of immunoassay and extensive in-house research and development using various known concentration samples and standards.

Ask a specific question about this device