Search Results

The Cyclosporine CSAE Flex® reagent cartridge is an in vitro diagnostic test intended to quantitatively measure cyclosporine A (CSA) in human whole blood for the Dimension® clinical chemistry system. Measurements of CSA are used as an aid in the management of heart, liver and kidney transplant patients.

Device Description

The Dimension® CSAE Cyclosporine Flex® reagent cartridge (DF108) is an in vitro rine Differences that consists of prepackaged reagents in a plastic eight well cartridge for use on the Dade Behring Dimension® clinical chemistry system for the quantitative determination cyclosporine A (CSA) in human whole blood.

AI/ML Overview

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Dimension® Cyclosporine CSAE Flex® reagent cartridge, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria for most performance characteristics. Instead, it reports the performance values observed during the studies. For linearity and functional sensitivity, implicit criteria can be inferred.

Performance Characteristic	Acceptance Criteria (Implicit/Inferred)	Reported Device Performance
Reproducibility	Not explicitly stated	Whole Blood Pool 1:Repeatability SD: 12.21 (3.32%CV)Within-lab SD: 19.00 (5.16%CV)Whole Blood Pool 2:Repeatability SD: 30.65 (2.73%CV)Within-lab SD: 57.24 (5.10%CV)Whole Blood Pool 3:Repeatability SD: 46.72 (2.64%CV)Within-lab SD: 104.07 (5.29%CV)More Control 1:Repeatability SD: 13.99 (2.86%CV)Within-lab SD: 28.77 (5.89%CV)More Control 2:Repeatability SD: 18.61 (2.15%CV)Within-lab SD: 47.71 (5.51%CV)More Control 3:Repeatability SD: 34.41 (2.64%CV)Within-lab SD: 68.89 (5.29%CV)
Method Comparison	Not explicitly stated (Implicit: good correlation with predicate and LC/MS)	vs. Abbott TDx® (All):Slope: 1.13Intercept: -67.2Correlation Coefficient: 0.980vs. LCMS (All):Slope: 1.09Intercept: 17.1Correlation Coefficient: 0.986
Linearity	Deviation from estimated line < 15 ng/mL at 794.5 ng/mL. Lower limit ≥ 350.0 ng/mL.	Deviation from estimated line < 15 ng/mL at 794.5 ng/mL. Lower limit of linearity claim: 350.0 ng/mL.
Interference Testing	Inaccuracies (biases) < 10% (at 800 ng/mL CSA)	Substances listed in package insert do not interfere (i.e., cause < 10% bias).
Analytical Specificity	Not explicitly stated (Implicit: low cross-reactivity for metabolites)	AM1: 4.7%AM1c: 2.1%AM1c9: 3.9%AM4N: 3.1%AM9: 2.4%AM19: 3.0%
Recovery	Not explicitly stated (Implicit: close to 100%)	Range: 94.3% to 103.1%Mean: 101.0%
Functional Sensitivity	Intra-assay CV ≤ 20%	< 110 ng/mL (defined as the lowest concentration where intra-assay CV is not greater than 20%)

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

Test Set Sample Size:
- Reproducibility: Not explicitly stated as a number of unique patient samples, but specimens at each level (3 whole blood pools, 3 controls) were analyzed in duplicate, once a day, for 20 days. This indicates 6 levels * 2 duplicates * 20 days = 240 measurements in total for reproducibility. It's likely these were distinct samples or control aliquots rather than 240 individual patient samples.
- Method Comparison: 140 specimens (human whole blood). These were further categorized by transplant type: Heart (35), Liver (40), Kidney (60).
- Linearity: 8 equally spaced sample pools (likely prepared from high and low pools).
- Interference Testing: Not explicitly stated, but implies testing with various interfering substances.
- Analytical Specificity: Six major metabolites were evaluated.
- Recovery: 3 human whole blood samples with known CSA concentrations.
- Functional Sensitivity: Not explicitly stated as a sample size, but refers to the "lowest concentration" (110 ng/mL) at which a CV criterion is met.
Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the samples or if they were retrospective or prospective. However, based on the context of providing performance data for a 510(k) submission, it is assumed these were carefully controlled studies conducted by the manufacturer, likely in a laboratory setting, and would represent prospective data collection for the purpose of validating the device. The samples are referred to as "human whole blood."

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

This type of information is generally not applicable to an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device like the Dimension® Cyclosporine CSAE Flex® reagent cartridge.

For IVDs that measure an analyte quantitatively, the "ground truth" is typically established by a reference method or a highly accurate comparative method. In this case, the LC/MS (Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) technology serves as the comparative "gold standard" or reference method for the method comparison study. LC/MS is a very precise analytical technique, not reliant on expert interpretation in the same way an imaging study would be.
No human experts were needed or used to establish the ground truth for the analyte concentration in the samples.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As explained above, for a quantitative IVD, ground truth is established by a reference analytical method (LC/MS), not by expert consensus or adjudication.

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

Not applicable.

This device is a fully automated in vitro diagnostic assay for measuring cyclosporine levels in blood. It does not involve human "readers" interpreting results in the way an imaging AI device would.
It is not an AI-assisted device. The comparison is between the new automated immunoassay and a predicate immunoassay (Abbott TDx® /TDx FLx®) and a reference method (LC/MS).

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, this study is inherently a standalone performance study. The device is an automated clinical chemistry system that measures cyclosporine directly. Its performance characteristics (reproducibility, linearity, method comparison, etc.) are evaluated based on its direct output, without human intervention or interpretation that would alter its result. The data presented demonstrates the device's inherent performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

The primary ground truth used for method comparison was LC/MS (Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) technology. This is considered a highly specific and accurate analytical reference method for quantifying cyclosporine in biological samples. The predicate device, the Abbott TDx® /TDx FLx® Cyclosporine Monoclonal Whole Blood Assay, also served as a comparative method.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This device is an immunoassay, and its development typically involves chemical and biological optimization (e.g., antibody selection, reagent concentrations) and calibration, not a machine learning training phase with a dedicated dataset distinct from the validation studies. The studies described are validation and verification studies.

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

As there is no "training set" in the machine learning sense for this type of immunoassay, this question is not applicable. The assay's performance is established through empirical testing and optimization of its chemical and biological components.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1