Search Results
Found 8 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(222 days)
Ceruloplasmin
System reagent for the quantitative determination of Ceruloplasmin (CER) in human serum and plasma on Beckman Coulter AU analyzers as an aid in the diagnosis of copper metabolism disorders.
The Ceruloplasmin reagent kit is in a liquid, ready to use form. It is available in one format OSR6164 which consists of 4 x 18mL R1 vials and 4 x 5ml R2 vials. The calibrator is a Beckman Coulter Serum protein multi-calibrator ODR3023 which is sold separately. Ceruloplasmin is a turbidimetric method the basis for this method is the measurement of the decrease in light transmitted (increase in absorbance) through the particles suspended in solution as a result of complexes formed during the antigen-antibody reaction. The Ceruloplasmin reagent is designed for optimal performance on the Beckman Coulter AU analyzers.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Beckman Coulter Ireland Inc. Ceruloplasmin reagent, based on the provided document:
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance | Meet Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Method Comparison | ||
| Slope: 0.900-1.100 | 1.056 | Pass |
| Intercept: ≤ ± 30mg/L | -26.10mg/L | Pass |
| r: ≥0.975 | 0.990 | Pass |
| N: ≥100 | 120 | Pass |
| Within Run Precision | ||
| Pool 1 (95.99 mg/L): ≤5% CV or SD ≤1 mg/dL (10mg/L) | 1.10% CV (1.042 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 2 (148.36 mg/L): ≤5% CV or SD ≤1 mg/dL (10mg/L) | 1.10% CV (1.70 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 3 (254.17 mg/L): ≤5% CV or SD ≤1 mg/dL (10mg/L) | 0.90% CV (2.30 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 4 (596.43 mg/L): ≤5% CV or SD ≤1 mg/dL (10mg/L) | 0.90% CV (5.46 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 5 (915.61 mg/L): ≤5% CV or SD ≤1 mg/dL (10mg/L) | 0.7% CV (6.78 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 6 (1791.94 mg/L): ≤5% CV or SD ≤1 mg/dL (10mg/L) | 0.5% CV (9.52 SD) | Pass |
| Total Precision | ||
| Pool 1 (95.99 mg/L): ≤10% CV or SD ≤2 mg/dL (20mg/L) | 6.7% CV (6.44 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 2 (148.36 mg/L): ≤10% CV or SD ≤2 mg/dL (20mg/L) | 2.80% CV (4.09 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 3 (254.17 mg/L): ≤10% CV or SD ≤2 mg/dL (20mg/L) | 2.20% CV (5.70 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 4 (596.43 mg/L): ≤10% CV or SD ≤2 mg/dL (20mg/L) | 1.90% CV (11.36 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 5 (915.61 mg/L): ≤10% CV or SD ≤2 mg/dL (20mg/L) | 1.6% CV (14.51 SD) | Pass |
| Pool 6 (1791.94 mg/L): ≤10% CV or SD ≤2 mg/dL (20mg/L) | 1.4% CV (25.23 SD) | Pass |
Study Details:
-
Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Method Comparison: 120 samples. The document does not specify the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective.
- Precision Study: The report lists 6 "pools" with varying concentrations. The number of individual samples within each pool or the total number of samples used for the precision study is not explicitly stated beyond what is implied by the "Pool" structure. The data provenance is also not specified.
-
Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- This is a chemistry test system (in vitro diagnostic reagent) for quantitative determination of ceruloplasmin. The ground truth (reference values) for the method comparison study was established using a predicate device, the Siemens N Antisera to Human Ceruloplasmin. For precision, the ground truth is based on the inherent variability measurements of the device itself.
- Therefore, the concept of "experts establishing ground truth" in the way it might apply to image-based diagnostic AI is not directly applicable here. No human experts are explicitly mentioned as establishing the ground truth for these quantitative measurements.
-
Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable. This device provides quantitative measurements, which are directly compared to values obtained from a predicate device or assessed for statistical precision, rather than requiring subjective expert adjudication of qualitative interpretations.
-
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 in-vitro diagnostic reagent, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant.
-
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- Yes, essentially. The stated performance data (Method Comparison, Precision) reflects the standalone performance of the Ceruloplasmin reagent system on Beckman Coulter AU analyzers without direct human intervention in the result generation process, beyond operating the analyzer and performing necessary calibration/quality control.
-
The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
- For the Method Comparison study, the ground truth was established by another legally marketed predicate device: Siemens N Antisera to Human Ceruloplasmin. This is a form of comparative ground truth against an established method.
- For the Precision study, the ground truth is statistical, derived from repeated measurements of samples to quantify variability relative to the mean of those measurements.
-
The sample size for the training set:
- This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for an in-vitro diagnostic reagent. It does not refer to a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. The development process for such a reagent would involve internal verification and validation studies during manufacturing, but these are not typically referred to as "training sets" in the same way as for AI. The document only reports performance data, not development data.
-
How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- Not applicable, as there is no "training set" described in the context of AI. For the development and validation of an IVD reagent, ground truth would be established through a combination of using certified reference materials, comparison to existing gold standard methods, and defined analytical protocols to ensure accuracy and precision. However, these specific details are not provided in this 510(k) summary.
Ask a specific question about this device
(275 days)
TINA-QUANT CERULOPLASMIN
Immunoturbidimetric assay for the quantitative in vitro determination of ceruloplasmin in human serum and plasma on Roche automated clinical chemistry analyzers. Measurements obtained by this device aid in the diagnosis of copper metabolism disorders.
The Tina-quant Ceruloplasmin assay employs an immunoturbidimetric test in which anti-ceruloplasmin antibodies react with antigen in the sample to form antigen/antibody complexes which, following agglutination can be determined turbidimetrically.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Tina-quant Ceruloplasmin Assay, based on the provided text:
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Criterion | Criteria Value / Threshold | Reported Device Performance | Study Type to Demonstrate Performance (Implicit) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision (Repeatability) | Control Low | SD ≤ 0.4 mg/dL; CV ≤ 1.5% | SD 0.4 mg/dL; CV 1.5% | Internal Verification |
| Control High | SD ≤ 0.9 mg/dL; CV ≤ 0.9% | SD 0.9 mg/dL; CV 0.9% | Internal Verification | |
| Serum Low | SD ≤ 1.2 mg/dL, CV ≤ 1.2% | SD 1.2 mg/dL, CV 1.2% | Internal Verification | |
| Serum Medium | SD ≤ 0.5 mg/dL, CV ≤ 0.8% | SD 0.5 mg/dL, CV 0.8% | Internal Verification | |
| Serum High | SD ≤ 0.9 mg/dL, CV ≤ 0.8% | SD 0.9 mg/dL, CV 0.8% | Internal Verification | |
| Precision (Intermediate/Total) | Control Low | SD ≤ 0.4 mg/dL; CV ≤ 1.6% | SD 0.4 mg/dL; CV 1.6% | Internal Verification |
| Control High | SD ≤ 0.7 mg/dL; CV ≤ 1.1% | SD 0.7 mg/dL; CV 1.1% | Internal Verification | |
| Serum Low | SD ≤ 0.4 mg/dL, CV ≤ 1.6% | SD 0.4 mg/dL, CV 1.6% | Internal Verification | |
| Serum Medium | SD ≤ 0.7 mg/dL, CV ≤ 1.0% | SD 0.7 mg/dL, CV 1.0% | Internal Verification | |
| Serum High | SD ≤ 1.1 mg/dL, CV ≤ 0.9% | SD 1.1 mg/dL, CV 0.9% | Internal Verification | |
| Analytical Sensitivity | Limit of Blank (LoB) | ≤ 2 mg/dL | ≤ 2 mg/dL | Internal Verification |
| Limit of Detection (LoD) | ≤ 3 mg/dL | ≤ 3 mg/dL | Internal Verification | |
| Analytical Specificity | Interference (Common Drugs) | No interference at common therapeutic concentrations | No interference was found at common therapeutic concentrations using common drug panels. | Interference Study |
| Interferences (Recovery) | Icterus | Recovery within ±10% up to I-index 60 | No significant interference up to an I index of 60 (approx. 60 mg/dL conjugated/unconjugated bilirubin) | Interference Study |
| Hemolysis | Recovery within ±10% up to H-index 350 | No significant interference up to an H index of 350 (approx. 350 mg/dL hemoglobin) | Interference Study | |
| Lipemia | Recovery within ±10% up to L-index 400 | No significant interference up to an L Index of 400 mg/dL. | Interference Study | |
| Rheumatoid Factor (RF) | No interference up to RF |
Ask a specific question about this device
(191 days)
CERULOPLASMIN, MODEL 2055953
COBAS INTEGRA Ceruloplasmin: Ceruloplasmin
Indications For Use:
COBAS INTEGRA:
In vitro test for the quantitative immunological determination of ceruloplasmin in human serum and plasma on COBAS INTEGRA systems.
Measurements of Ceruloplasmin aid in the diagnosis of copper metabolism disorders.
Roche/Hitachi cobas c systems:
In vitro test for the quantitative determination of ceruloplasmin in human serum and plasma on Roche/Hitachi cobas c systems.
Measurements of Ceruloplasmin aid in the diagnosis of copper metabolism disorders.
The COBAS INTEGRA Ceruloplasmin cassette (CERU) contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA SYSTEMS for the quantitative immunological determination of human ceruloplasmin in serum and plasma. The calibrator and control were cleared via K954992.
Measurements of ceruloplasmin aid in the diagnosis of copper metabolism disorders.
The test principle is an immunoturbidimetric assay. The calibrator is Serumproteins T Standard and the recommended control material is the Serumproteins T Control.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the COBAS INTEGRA Ceruloplasmin device, based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Performance Characteristic | Predicate Device (0.06-1.3 g/L) | COBAS INTEGRA Ceruloplasmin (Acceptance Criteria/Performance) |
|---|---|---|
| Measuring Range | 0.06-1.3 g/L | 0.06-1.26 g/L (Reported performance, implying this is the accepted range for the device) |
| Lower Detection Limit | 0.02 g/L | 0.017 g/L (Reported performance, implying this is the accepted limit for the device). This is an improvement compared to the predicate device. |
| Expected Values | 0.2-0.6 g/L | 0.2-0.6 g/L (Same as predicate, implying this is the accepted range for normal values) |
| Precision (Within run total CV%) | ||
| At ~0.2-0.27 g/L | 1.0% @ 0.27 g/L | 3.88% @ 0.2 g/L (Reported performance) |
| At ~0.34-0.35 g/L | 1.4% @ 0.34 g/L | 2.66% @ 0.35 g/L (Reported performance) |
| At ~0.62 g/L | 1.6% @ 0.62 g/L | (No corresponding data point provided for COBAS INTEGRA Ceruloplasmin) |
| Linearity | 0.06-0.69 g/L | 0.06-1.26 g/L (Reported performance, implying this is the accepted linear range for the device. This is an improvement compared to the predicate device.) |
| Endogenous Interferences | ||
| Hemolysis | no interferences up to 10 g/L | no significant interferences (Reported performance, implying this is the accepted level of interference) |
| Icterus | no interferences up to 600 mg/L | no significant interferences (Reported performance, implying this is the accepted level of interference) |
| Triglycerides/Lipemia | no interferences up to 25 g/L | no significant interferences (Reported performance, implying this is the accepted level of interference) |
| Rheumatoid factors | (Not mentioned) | no significant interferences up to 400 IU/mL (Reported performance) |
| Exogenous Interferences | (Not mentioned) | Gammopathy, in particular IgM, may cause unreliable results in rare cases (Reported, implying this is an accepted limitation) |
| Method Comparison (vs. DakoCytomation Anti Human Ceruloplasmin) | y = 1.0x - 0.0 g/L; r = 0.987 | y = 1.0x - 0.0 g/L; r =0.987 (Reported, implying agreement with the predicate is the accepted criterion) |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for validating each performance characteristic (e.g., precision, linearity, interference studies, or method comparison). The data provenance is not specified regarding country of origin or an explicit retrospective/prospective design. However, the context of a 510(k) submission for a new in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device typically implies prospective testing conducted by the manufacturer, likely at their facilities.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
Not applicable. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for a quantitative biomarker (ceruloplasmin). The "ground truth" for such devices is established by analytical methods and comparison to a predicate device or reference material, not by expert interpretation of images or clinical cases.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable, as this is an IVD assay, not a device requiring human interpretation and adjudication of results. The method comparison refers to the statistical comparison of results from the new device against the predicate device.
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 is an in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting cases.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
Yes, this is an algorithm-only (standalone) performance. The device is a fully automated immunoturbidimetric assay system that quantitatively determines ceruloplasmin levels. There is no human intervention in the result generation process; the result is directly reported by the instrument.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
The ground truth for this device's performance is established through:
- Reference materials: The device "Standardized against IFCC/BCR/CAP reference preparation CRM 470 (RPPHS 91/0619) for 14 serum proteins." This reference material serves as a "ground truth" for calibrating the assay.
- Comparison to a legally marketed predicate device: The method comparison data shows results against the DakoCytomation Polyclonal Rabbit Anti-Human Ceruloplasmin (K812486), which serves as a clinical benchmark (or "ground truth" in terms of clinical performance equivalence).
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not explicitly stated. For IVD devices, a "training set" in the context of machine learning is not directly applicable. The "training" here refers to the development and optimization of the reagent formulation and assay parameters. The document doesn't provide specific sample sizes for these development phases.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
Not explicitly stated in the document. For IVD assays, the "ground truth" for development and optimization (analogous to training) would typically involve:
- Using known concentrations of ceruloplasmin (e.g., from purified human ceruloplasmin or spiked samples).
- Testing against established reference methods or highly characterized samples.
- Performing extensive analytical verification during the development phase to ensure the assay performs as intended across its measuring range and with various interference challenges.
Ask a specific question about this device
(169 days)
COBAS INTEGRA CERULOPLASMIN
Prealbumin/Ceruloplasmin Control Set (Precinorm/Precipath PC) is used for quality control by monitoring accuracy and precision for the quantitative methods as specified in the enclosed value sheet.
Proprietary name: Prealbumin/Ceruloplasmin Control Set
Common name: Precinorm/Precipath PC
Classification name: Multi-Analyte Controls, All Kinds (assayed and unassayed) in Class I
Matrix: Human serum with material of biological origin as specified
Format: Lyophilized
Handling: Reconstitute with exactly 1.0 mL of distilled water and allow to stand closed for 30 minutes to reconstitute, and then mix gently.
This submission describes the Prealbumin/Ceruloplasmin Control Set (Precinorm/Precipath PC), a Class I device used for quality control by monitoring the accuracy and precision of quantitative methods for Prealbumin and Ceruloplasmin. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, Precinorm PUC (K040280), rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a standalone study for the device's performance.
Here's the breakdown of the information requested, based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The provided submission does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or provide detailed performance data for the Prealbumin/Ceruloplasmin Control Set. Instead, it states that "The Prealbumin/Ceruloplasmin Control Set was evaluated for value assignment and stability. A summary of the evaluation studies is provided in the Performance Characteristics Section of this submission." However, the "Performance Characteristics Section" itself is not included in the provided document.
The document focuses on comparing the new device to a predicate device, noting similarities in intended use and stability, and differences in matrix, format, and handling.
| Characteristic | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Intended Use | To be used for quality control by monitoring accuracy and precision for quantitative methods as specified in the enclosed value sheet. | Prealbumin/Ceruloplasmin Control Set (Precinorm/Precipath PC) is used for quality control by monitoring accuracy and precision for the quantitative methods as specified in the enclosed value sheet. (Matches intended use of predicate) |
| Stability | Unopened: Store at 2-8°C until expiration date. | |
| Reconstituted: |
- At 15 – 25 °C: up to 8 hrs
- At 2-8°C: 2 days
- At (-15)-(-25)°C: 2 weeks (freeze only once) | Matches the described stability, which is comparable but not identical to the predicate (Opened: Stable for 4 weeks at 2-8°C for predicate). The exact performance to meet these criteria is not detailed. |
| Value Assignment | Not specified. | "Evaluated for value assignment" (Details not provided). |
| Accuracy & Precision | Not specified. | "monitoring accuracy and precision" (Performance metrics not provided). |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
This information is not provided in the given document. The submission mentions "evaluations summary" and "performance characteristics," but no details on sample size, data country of origin, or whether the study was retrospective or prospective are included.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications
This information is not applicable and not provided. This device is a quality control material for laboratory assays, not an imaging or diagnostic device that requires expert interpretation for establishing ground truth on patient data. Ground truth for control materials typically relates to the assigned values of the analytes within the control, which are established through rigorous analytical methods, often by the manufacturer.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This information is not applicable and not provided. As explained above, this device does not involve a diagnostic decision or interpretation of patient data that would require an adjudication method.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance
This information is not applicable and not provided. This device is a quality control material, not an AI-powered diagnostic device, and therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is irrelevant to its purpose.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
This information is not applicable and not provided. This device is a laboratory control material, not an algorithm.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The ground truth for this type of device (quality control material) would primarily be the assigned values of the analytes (Prealbumin and Ceruloplasmin) within the control material. These values are established through the manufacturer's value assignment process, which typically involves multiple measurements using reference methods and/or calibrated instruments. The document states the device "was evaluated for value assignment," implying this process was conducted, but specific details are not provided.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
This information is not applicable and not provided. This device is a quality control material, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
This information is not applicable and not provided. (See point 8).
Ask a specific question about this device
(135 days)
N ANTISERA TO HUMAN CERULOPLASMIN
In vitro diagnostic reagents for the quantitative determination of ceruloplasmin and hemopexin in human serum and heparinization of only and one of immunonephelometry on the BN™ Systems.
In vitro diagnostic reagents for the quantitative determination of ceruloplasmin and hemopexin in serum and heparinized plasma by means of immunonephelometery on the BN™ Systems. Measurement of ceruloplasmin aids in the diagnosis of cooply of metabolism disorders.
Proteins contained in human body fluids form immune complexes in an immunochemical reaction with specific antibodies. These complexes scatter a beam of light passed through the sample. The intensity of the scattered light is proportional to the concentration of the relevant protein in the sample. The result is evaluated by comparison with a standard of known concentration.
This document describes the 510(k) summary for the "N Antisera to Human Ceruloplasmin" device, which is an in vitro diagnostic reagent used for the quantitative determination of ceruloplasmin and hemopexin in human serum and heparinized plasma. The submission claims substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (K860894).
Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative format for specific performance metrics like accuracy, precision, or detection limits. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating equivalence to a predicate device.
| Performance Characteristic | Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Method Equivalence | Substantially equivalent to predicate device (K860894) | Demonstrated equivalent performance to the predicate device. |
| Serum vs. Heparinized Plasma Measurement | Method comparison should show high correlation | 0.99 correlation coefficient between serum and heparinized plasma measurements. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
- Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "a method comparison was performed" but does not give the number of samples or subjects used in this comparison.
- Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The document doesn't specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:
- Not applicable as this is an in vitro diagnostic reagent claiming equivalence, not a medical imaging or clinical diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
- Not applicable for a chemistry assay where the "ground truth" is typically established by reference methods or comparison to a predicate device.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:
- No, an MRMC study was not performed. This type of study is relevant for devices involving human interpretation of medical images or data. This device is an automated in vitro diagnostic reagent.
6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done:
- Yes, this device operates as a standalone diagnostic reagent on the BN™ Systems. Its performance is evaluated based on its ability to quantitatively determine ceruloplasmin and hemopexin levels, without requiring human interpretation of results beyond reading the quantitative output. The "method comparison" study conducted is essentially a standalone performance evaluation against a comparable method.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:
- The ground truth for this device's performance evaluation is established through comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (K860894), and by demonstrating correlation between different sample types (serum and heparinized plasma). The predicate device itself would have been validated against established reference methods or clinical outcomes.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:
- Not applicable. This device is an in vitro diagnostic reagent, not an AI/ML algorithm that undergoes a "training" phase with a dataset. Its development likely involved R&D, formulation, and analytical validation.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
- Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of this traditional in vitro diagnostic reagent.
Ask a specific question about this device
(141 days)
SENTINEL CERULOPLASMIN
The Sentinel Ceruloplasmin assay is used for the quantitation of ceruloplasmin (copper-transporting serum protein) levels in human serum or plasma. Measurements of ceruloplasmin aid in the diagnosis of copper metabolism disorder.
Sentinel Ceruloplasmin is an in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of ceruloplasmin in serum or plasma. The Sentinel Ceruloplasmin assay is a two-reagent format based on the immunological reaction between anti-ceruloplasmin antibonds specific for ceruloplasmin. The turbidity of the immunocomplex is proportional to the concentration of the analyte in the sample.
Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Sentinel Ceruloplasmin assay, broken down according to your requested criteria:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Performance Characteristic | Acceptance Criteria (Implied by Predicate) | Reported Device Performance (Sentinel Ceruloplasmin) |
|---|---|---|
| Method Correlation (Slope) | Close to 1.0 (indicating good agreement) | 1.0256 |
| Method Correlation (Y-intercept) | Close to 0 (indicating no systematic bias) | -1.0205 mg/dL |
| Total %CV (Precision) - Level 1 | Comparable to predicate (not explicitly stated, but generally |
Ask a specific question about this device
(50 days)
CALIBRATOR FOR AUTOMATED SYSTEMS PREALBUMIN-ASLO-CERULOPLASMIN (C.F.A.S. PAC)
The C.f.a.s. PAC is intended for use in the calibration of quantitative Roche methods on Roche clinical chemistry analyzers as specified in the enclosed value sheet.
The C.f.a.s. PAC is a lyophilized product consisting of human serum with biological materials added as required to obtain desired component levels. Values for constituent analytes are provided in product labeling.
The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "C.f.a.s. PAC," which is a calibrator for automated systems. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain the detailed study information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement that you requested.
The document states under "Performance Characteristics":
- "The C.f.a.s. PAC was evaluated for value assignment and stability."
This phrase indicates that a study was performed, but the results, methodology, acceptance criteria, and other specifics of that study are not included in this summary. The 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than providing a performance study report.
Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based on the provided text. The requested information (Table of acceptance criteria and reported performance, sample sizes, data provenance, number and qualifications of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size, and training ground truth establishment) is not present in this document.
Ask a specific question about this device
(149 days)
IMMAGE IMMUNOCHEMISTRY SYSTEM CERULOPLASMIN (CER) REAGENT
The IMMAGE Immunochemistry System Ceruloplasmin (CER) Reagent, when used in coniunction with Beckman IMMAGE™ Immunochemistry Systems and Beckman Calibrator 2, is intended for the quantitative determination of human ceruloplasmin by rate nephelometry.
The IMMAGE Immunochemistry System CER Reagent in conjunction with Beckman Calibrator 2, is intended for use in the quantitative determination of ceruloplasmin concentrations in human serum samples on Beckman's IMMAGE Immunochemistry System.
Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the IMMAGE™ Immunochemistry System Ceruloplasmin (CER) Reagent:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Performance Metric | Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Method Comparison | Strong linear correlation (r approaching 1) and minimal bias (slope approaching 1, intercept approaching 0) to a predicate device. | Slope: 0.996, Intercept: -2.43, r: 0.995 (n=104 serum samples) |
| Stability | Reagent maintains performance over time (not explicitly stated, but demonstrated through stability testing). | "Stability Study Results" mentioned, but specific data and criteria are not provided in the excerpt. |
| Imprecision (Within Run) | Low coefficient of variation (%CV) for repeated measurements. | Serum Level 1: 3.1% CV (Mean 13.6 mg/dL) |
| Serum Level 2: 2.4% CV (Mean 49.3 mg/dL) | ||
| Serum Level 3: 3.1% CV (Mean 88.0 mg/dL) | ||
| Low Serum Level 1: 5.8% CV (Mean 1.4 mg/dL) | ||
| Low Serum Level 2: 3.9% CV (Mean 4.3 mg/dL) | ||
| Imprecision (Total) | Low coefficient of variation (%CV) for repeated measurements over multiple runs/days. | Serum Level 1: 3.8% CV (Mean 13.6 mg/dL) |
| Serum Level 2: 3.5% CV (Mean 49.3 mg/dL) | ||
| Serum Level 3: 4.3% CV (Mean 88.0 mg/dL) | ||
| Low Serum Level 1: 6.6% CV (Mean 1.4 mg/dL) | ||
| Low Serum Level 2: 3.9% CV (Mean 4.3 mg/dL) |
Note: The acceptance criteria for stability and imprecision are implied by the nature of these tests in diagnostic device validation. The document states that the data "supports a finding of substantial equivalence," which suggests that these performance metrics met the internal or regulatory thresholds for equivalence.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Method Comparison Test Set Sample Size: 104 serum samples.
- Imprecision Test Set Sample Size: For each of the five serum levels tested, 80 data points were collected for "Within Run" and "Total" precision, and 30 data points for the "Low Serum Levels". This refers to the number of individual measurements or replicates.
- Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It is a submission by Beckman Instruments, Inc. in Brea, California, USA, so it's most likely US-based data, but this is not confirmed. The studies are prospective in nature, as they involve testing the device's performance characteristics.
3. 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 immunochemistry system that quantifies ceruloplasmin, the ground truth would typically be established by a reference method or a predicate device. The document uses a predicate device (Beckman Array Systems CER Reagent) as the reference for the method comparison, rather than expert consensus on individual results.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
- This information is not applicable and therefore not provided in the document. Adjudication is typically used when there are subjective interpretations (e.g., medical imaging) requiring multiple experts to reach a consensus. For a quantitative immunoassay, the "ground truth" is derived from a reference measurement or predicate assay, not through expert adjudication of individual results.
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 information is not applicable and therefore not provided in the document. MRMC studies are specific to diagnostic devices where human readers (e.g., radiologists) interpret results, often with and without AI assistance. This device is a fully automated immunochemistry system for quantitative measurement, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human interpretation.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
- Yes, the studies presented (Method Comparison and Imprecision) represent the standalone performance of the IMMAGE™ Immunochemistry System Ceruloplasmin (CER) Reagent. The system is designed for automated quantitative determination, meaning it operates without human intervention in the result generation process once the sample is loaded and the assay initiated. The reported performance metrics are for the device itself.
7. The type of ground truth used
- The ground truth for the method comparison study was established by the predicate device, the Beckman Array Systems CER Reagent. This means the IMMAGE System's results were compared against the established results from an already approved and commercially distributed device to demonstrate substantial equivalence. For imprecision, the "ground truth" is internal consistency and reproducibility of the device itself.
8. The sample size for the training set
- This information is not provided in the document. This device is an immunochemistry assay, not a machine-learning or AI-based system that typically requires a distinct "training set" for model development. The development process would involve formulation, optimization, and internal testing, but not in the same sense as an AI algorithm's training phase.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- This information is not provided and is not applicable in the context of this type of diagnostic device. As explained above, there isn't a "training set" in the machine learning sense for this immunochemistry system. The development and validation process would rely on established analytical chemistry principles and performance characteristics, rather than data-driven model training.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1