Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K960551
    Date Cleared
    1996-03-06

    (27 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    862.1370
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    DSL ACTIVE HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE ELISA

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The DSL Active hGH ELISA Kit was developed for the quantitative measurement of human growth hormone in human serum. The measurement of growth hormone in serum is used as a diagnostic aid in the evaluation of hGH deficiency disorders or acromegaly.

    Device Description

    Mouse monoclonal antibody "capture antibody" is immobilized to the inner surface of microtiter plate wells. Growth hormone in the standards or serum samples is "sandwiched" between the capture antibody and the anti-hGH monoclonal antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase enzyme.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a "SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS" for a diagnostic device, specifically the "DSL 10-1900 hGH ELISA Kit". It describes the device, its intended use, and a study comparing it to a predicate device to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

    Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

    1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

    The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative format for the new device's performance. Instead, it compares the new device to a predicate device (Nichols Institute hGH IRMA) to show "substantial equivalence." The reported performance relates to this comparison.

    Acceptance Criteria (Implied for Substantial Equivalence)Reported Device Performance (Comparison to Nichols Institute hGH IRMA)
    Strong linear correlation with predicate deviceRegression analysis: Y = 1.06X + 0.25
    High correlation coefficient with predicate deviceCorrelation coefficient: 0.99
    Similar intended use as predicate device"These kits have the same intended use."

    2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

    • Sample Size: 41 patient samples
    • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It states "patient samples were collected," implying they are retrospective or a convenience sample collected specifically for the study. It doesn't indicate if they were collected prospectively.

    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 ELISA kit, "ground truth" would typically be established by laboratory reference methods or expert clinical interpretation of patient conditions, but the text focuses on comparing the new ELISA to another established ELISA.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    This information is not provided in the document, as the study is a direct comparison of two assays rather than a human-reader-based assessment requiring 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

    No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document describes an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device (ELISA kit) for measuring a biomarker, not an AI or imaging device that would typically involve human readers.

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

    The entire study described is a standalone performance of the DSL hGH ELISA kit compared to the Nichols Institute hGH IRMA kit. Both are automated or semi-automated laboratory assays, not requiring human "in-the-loop" interpretation in the same way an AI imaging algorithm might.

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

    The document implies that the Nichols Institute hGH IRMA served as the de-facto "ground truth" or reference method against which the new DSL hGH ELISA Kit was compared to establish substantial equivalence. It's a comparison against an existing, presumably validated, diagnostic assay.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    This information is not provided in the document. For an ELISA kit, training would typically involve assay development and optimization (e.g., reagent concentrations, incubation times), not a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The 41 samples discussed are for the equivalence comparison, not for training.

    9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

    This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a "training set" or "ground truth" for it in the context of this ELISA kit's development and validation in this document. The "ground truth" concept applies more directly to the comparison study described in point 7.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1