Search Results

Indications for Use :The Diamedix Is-RF an Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) for the detection and quantitative determination of RF-JgM antibodies in human serum as an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. These reagents can be used either manually or in conjunction with the MAGO® Automated EIA Processor.

The Is-RF Test Kit System is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection and quantitation of RF IgM-class in human serum.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Diamedix Is-RF Test System, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size: 200 sera from normal blood donors and 49 sera from clinical patients (total = 249 tested, with 240/244 used for agreement after excluding equivocal results).
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the "S. Florida donor population" is mentioned in the context of expected values, suggesting a US origin for at least some of the normal samples. The clinical patient samples' origin is not specified. The study is retrospective as it uses collected sera.

2. 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. The comparison is made against "another commercially available RF EIA test kit" and a "referee method," but details on human experts establishing ground truth for the test set are absent.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not explicitly described as a human adjudication method. The text mentions "equivocal results excluded from calculations" and a "referee method" used to resolve discrepancies between the Diamedix kit and the comparative method. This implies some form of adjudication, but not a specific consensus-based human adjudication process.

4. 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 was not a MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI. This is an in vitro diagnostic device (ELISA kit) for detecting biomarkers, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that aids human interpretation of images or other complex data.

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

   • Yes, the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement, linearity, precision, cross-reactivity) are all standalone performance metrics of the device itself (both manually and with the MAGO automated processor). There is no "human-in-the-loop" component for the interpretation of the RF IgM levels produced by the assay.

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

   • The ground truth for the comparison was established by a "comparative method" (another commercially available RF EIA test kit that is standardized against the WHO RF Reference preparation) and a "referee method" for discordant results. This suggests a reference standard method rather than clinical outcomes or pathology.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not provide information about a separate "training set" in the context of a machine learning algorithm. This is a traditional IVD device, not an AI/ML product. The provided data represents a validation study against a reference standard.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • As there is no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning, this question is not applicable. The device's calibration and standardization are mentioned as being against the "WHO RF Reference preparation" and an "in-house reference standard."

Ask a specific question about this device