Search Results

The Diamedix Is anti-β,Glycoprotein I Screen Test Kit is an indirect enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for the semi-quantitative measurement of IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies to ß, glycoprotein I in human serum as an aid in the diagnosis of certain autoimmune thrombotic disorders in patients with SLE or SLE-like disorders. These reagents can be used either manually or in conjunction with the MAGO® Plus Automated EIA Processor.

The Is anti B, Glycoprotein I Screen Test System is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the semi-quantitative measurement of IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies to ß, glycoprotein I in human serum

The provided text describes the performance characteristics of the "Is anti-β₂Glycoprotein I Screen Test System". This device is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the semi-quantitative measurement of IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies to β₂ glycoprotein I in human serum, intended as an aid in the diagnosis of certain autoimmune thrombotic disorders in patients with SLE or SLE-like disorders.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria for relative sensitivity, specificity, or overall agreement as a specific numerical threshold that the device must meet to be considered acceptable. Instead, it reports the observed performance and implicitly expects it to be within a reasonable range for an equivalent device. However, for clinical sensitivity and specificity, specific percentages are reported for different patient groups.

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

• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study:
  • Sample Size: 187 frozen, retrospective sera.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implies a general clinical setting, likely within the US given the submission to the FDA. The normal blood donors were also not specified by country.
• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study:
  • Sample Size: 387 frozen retrospective, clinically characterized sera.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implies a general clinical setting, likely within the US.
• Correlation of Manual and MAGO Plus results:
  • Sample Size: 305 serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.
• Expected Values (Normal Population):
  • Sample Size: 148 S. Florida blood donors (98 males, 50 females).
  • Data Provenance: Retrospective, from South Florida, USA.
• Expected Values (Clinical Population):
  • Sample Size: 57 sera from patients with diagnosed anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implies a general clinical setting.

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for the test set in the traditional sense of consensus reading for imaging or clinical diagnosis.

• In the Relative Sensitivity and Specificity study, a "commercially available ELISA kit" and a "referee EIA method" were used as alternative methods to confirm results for discordant samples. This implies a comparison against established laboratory assays rather than expert clinical diagnosis.
• In the Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity study, samples were "clinically characterized sera" from "patients with diagnosed anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS)", "patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)", "patients with other autoimmune diseases," and "normal sera". The characterization of these samples would have been based on established clinical diagnostic criteria, implying involvement of clinicians, but specific details on their number or qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study: For the 25 discordant samples between the investigational device and the initial comparator EIA, a "referee EIA method" was used for "further resolution." This implies a form of adjudication where a third, presumably more robust or accepted, method was used to resolve discrepancies. It wasn't a human expert consensus model (e.g., 2+1, 3+1).
• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study: No specific adjudication method is mentioned. The samples were "clinically characterized," meaning their disease status was determined prior to the study using standard clinical diagnostic procedures.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance was not conducted. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool for human interpretation. The study focuses on the device's analytical and clinical performance against other assays or patient cohorts.

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

Yes, the studies presented are essentially "standalone" evaluations of the device. The reported performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, correlation, linearity, precision) assess the assay directly or in comparison to other laboratory assays, without explicitly describing a human-in-the-loop scenario for interpreting the assay results. The device provides a semi-quantitative measurement, which a clinician would then interpret in the context of a patient's overall clinical picture. The "Manual vs. MAGO Plus Correlation" study evaluates the automated version of the device against its manual counterpart, which can also be considered a standalone evaluation of both methods.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study: The ground truth was established by another "commercially available ELISA kit" and, for discordant samples, a "referee EIA method." This is comparator assay ground truth.
• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study: The ground truth was based on clinical diagnoses/characterization of the patient sera (e.g., "patients with diagnosed anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS)", "patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)", "normal sera"). This implies established diagnostic criteria were used to classify patients.
• Linearity and Precision studies: These studies assess internal analytical performance and do not rely on an external "ground truth" of disease state in the same way. They establish the device's ability to accurately measure known concentrations and reproducibility.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

No explicit training set is mentioned. For IVD devices like this, the development process typically involves internal optimization and validation, often using characterized samples, but they don't usually describe a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning. The studies described are performance validation studies.

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

Since no explicit training set is mentioned in the provided text, the method for establishing its ground truth is not detailed.

Ask a specific question about this device