Search Results

For the IN VITRO diagnostic use as calibrators for the DCL CRP-ADVANCE Assay for the quantitation of C-reactive protein in serum.

The CRP-ADVANCE Multi-Calibrator Set, Cat. No. SE-250 are C-reactive protein standards containing known quantities of human c-reactive protein. These calibrators are to be use with the DCL CRP-ADVANCF Assay.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a CRP-ADVANCE Multi-Calibrator Set. This device is a calibrator used for in vitro diagnostic assays to quantify C-reactive protein in serum.

Given the nature of this device (a calibrator, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic device or imaging device), the requested information about acceptance criteria, study design, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment, as typically applied to AI/ML or imaging diagnostics, is largely not applicable or would be addressed through different types of validation studies (e.g., analytical validation studies for calibrators).

Nevertheless, I will interpret the request based on the information that can be inferred or is typically required for such a device.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions, highlighting when information is not present in the provided document or is not applicable to this type of device:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The provided document (an FDA 510(k) clearance letter) does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or detailed performance data from a specific study. Instead, it states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. For a calibrator, acceptance criteria would typically revolve around its ability to:

• Accurately assign values (e.g., target concentrations of C-reactive protein).
• Demonstrate stability over its shelf life.
• Show lot-to-lot consistency.
• Be compatible with the intended assay (DCL CRP-ADVANCE Assay).

The "reported device performance" is essentially the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence, meaning it performs as intended and is as safe and effective as the predicate device. Specific numerical performance metrics are not provided in this regulatory letter but would have been part of the 510(k) submission.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not present in the FDA 510(k) clearance letter. For a calibrator, a "test set" wouldn't typically involve patient data in the way an AI diagnostic would. Instead, it would involve:

• A set of calibrator lots (for lot-to-lot variability studies).
• Reference materials or samples with known C-reactive protein concentrations (to verify assigned values).
• Samples tested on the DCL CRP-ADVANCE Assay using the calibrators.

The provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) is also not specified.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This is not applicable in the context of this device. Calibrators do not have "ground truth" in the sense of expert human interpretation of images or clinical data. The "ground truth" for a calibrator would be its assigned concentration of C-reactive protein, which is established through rigorous analytical methods, often traceable to international reference standards or highly precise laboratory measurements, not subjective expert consensus.

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

This is not applicable for a calibrator. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for resolving disagreements among multiple human readers/experts when establishing ground truth for diagnostic decisions, typically in imaging or clinical scenarios.

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

This is not applicable to a calibrator. MRMC studies are used for evaluating diagnostic devices, especially those involving human interpretation, often in the context of AI assistance. A calibrator is a foundational component of an assay; it doesn't involve human 'readers' or 'cases' in this manner, nor does it involve AI.

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

This is not applicable to a calibrator. A calibrator is a physical reagent set, not an algorithm, and does not have a "standalone performance" in the context of AI. Its performance is demonstrated through its ability to accurately calibrate an assay.

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

For a calibrator, the "ground truth" for its values (C-reactive protein concentrations) would be established by:

• Traceability to a primary reference material or standard: Often established through highly accurate analytical techniques, possibly gravimetric or spectroscopic methods, benchmarked against international standards.
• Value assignment studies: Using precise analytical methods within a well-controlled laboratory environment to determine the concentration of the analyte in each calibrator level.

This is a measured, analytically derived ground truth, not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable to a calibrator in the way it applies to AI/ML devices. Calibrators are not "trained" on data. Their formulation and characteristics are developed through chemical and biological engineering, and their values are assigned through analytical validation.

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

This is not applicable as there is no "training set" for a calibrator. The "ground truth" of the calibrator's assigned values is established through the analytical methods described in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device