Search Results

COBAS INTEGRA Bilirubin Direct Gen.2 is an in vitro test for the quantitative determination of direct bilirubin in human serum and plasma on COBAS INTEGRA systems. Measurement of the levels of bilirubin, an organic compound formed during the normal and abnormal destruction of red blood cells, is used in the diagnosis and treatment of liver, hemolytic, hematological, and metabolic disorders, including hepatitis and gall bladder block.

COBAS INTEGRA Bilirubin Direct Gen.2 reagent provides quantitative measurement of the direct bilirubin that is present in a human serum or human plasma sample. Reagents are packaged in a cassette with two bottles labeled with their instrument positioning, R1 and SR. R1, or Reagent 1, contains Phosphoric acid 85 mmol/L, NaCl 50 mmol/L, and HEDTA 4.0 mmol/L at pH 1.9. SR, or Start Reagent, is a 3,5-dichlorophenyl diazonium salt at 1.5 mmol/L in acid buffer, pH 1.3.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study information for the COBAS INTEGRA Bilirubin Direct Gen.2 reagent, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Information

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

   • Precision/Reproducibility: Not explicitly stated, but samples were "human sera samples (0.12, 3.76, and 13.2 mg/dL)" and "two serum-based control samples." Samples were tested for 21 days with 2 aliquots per run, 2 runs per day.
   • Linearity: Not explicitly stated, but "two separate dilution series differing by sample type (serum and plasma) were prepared with thirteen levels each." "High analyte native samples" were spiked with ditaurobilirubin.
   • Detection Limits (LoB): One blank sample (n=5) tested on two analyzers with three reagent batches for two runs per day across three days.
   • Detection Limits (LoD): Five low-analyte samples measured in singlicate on two analyzers with three reagent batches for two runs per day across three days.
   • Detection Limits (LoQ): A low-level sample set of nine measured in singlicate, using three reagent batches on two analyzers for two runs per day across three days.
   • Analytical Specificity (Endogenous Substances): One pool of human serum spiked with interferent, a second pool without, and then mixed in different ratios to create a dilution series (0 to 10 concentrations).
   • Analytical Specificity (Common Drugs): Eighteen commonly used drugs added to native patient samples. Serum sample pools were at two target concentrations (~1.8 mg/dL and ~4.9 mg/dL).
   • Method Comparison: n=71 human sera samples.
   • Matrix Comparison: 32 tubes collected per anticoagulant (Li-heparin, K2-EDTA, K3-EDTA).
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implies clinical lab settings ("human sera samples," "native patient samples"). The text does not specify country of origin or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective, though typical analytical validation studies are prospective.

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

   • This is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) reagent for quantitative determination of a chemical substance. The "ground truth" for such devices is typically established through reference methods or highly accurate laboratory technologies, not expert human readers/adjudicators as would be common for imaging or pathology devices.
   • The predicate device's traceability is stated as "Standardized against the Doumas manual reference method." The candidate device claims the same traceability. The Doumas method serves as the ground truth reference.

3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

   • Not applicable as this is a quantitative chemical assay, not an interpretative task requiring human adjudication of results.

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:

   • Not applicable. This is a laboratory diagnostic reagent, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or pathology device that would involve human readers.

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

   • Yes, this is implicitly a standalone device. The COBAS INTEGRA Bilirubin Direct Gen.2 Reagent, when run on the COBAS INTEGRA system, performs the measurement automatically without human interpretative input for the actual bilirubin value. The studies presented (precision, linearity, detection limits, interference, method comparison, matrix comparison) are all "standalone" performance evaluations of the reagent/analyzer system.

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

   • The ground truth for the analytical performance characteristics is established by highly controlled laboratory measurements using validated reference methods (e.g., the Doumas method for bilirubin), highly characterized samples, and adherence to CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) guidelines (EP5-A2, EP6-A, EP17-A2), which are standard for IVD device validation.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a chemical reagent, not a machine learning model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "training" here would be the development and optimization of the reagent formulation and assay parameters based on extensive chemical and analytical research and development.

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

   • Not applicable (see point 7). The "ground truth" during the development phase would involve using highly accurate and precise analytical techniques to characterize various bilirubin concentrations and interfering substances to optimize the reagent's performance against these known values.

Ask a specific question about this device