Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(222 days)
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
(191 days)
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
Page 1 of 1