Search Results

Immunoassay for the in vitro quantitative determination of estradiol in human serum and plasma.

Competition principle. Total duration of assay: 18 minutes, 37 °C.
· 1st incubation (9 minutes): By incubating the sample (50 uL) with an estradiol-specific biotinylated antibody (65 uL), an immunocomplex is formed, the amount of which is dependent upon the analyte concentration in the sample.
·2nd incubation (9 minutes): After addition of streptavidin-coated microparticles (35 µL) and an estradiol derivative labeled with a ruthenium complex* (65 uL), the still-vacant sites of the biotinylated antibodies become occupied, with the formation of an antibody-hapten complex. The entire complex becomes bound to the solid phase via interaction of biotin and streptavidin.
· The reaction mixture is aspirated into the measuring cell where the microparticles are magnetically captured onto the surface of the electrode. Unbound substances are then removed with ProCell. Application of a voltage to the electrode then induces chemiluminescent emission which is measured by a photomultiplier (0.4 second read frame).
·Results are determined via a calibration curve which is instrumentspecifically generated by 2-point calibration and a master curve provided via the reagent bar code.
** Tris(2,2'-bipyridy))ruthenium(II) complex (Ru(bpy)" 3)

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Boehringer Mannheim Elecsys® Estradiol Assay, comparing it to a predicate device, the Enzymun-Test® Estradiol Assay (K916132). This submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence based on performance characteristics.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" with pass/fail thresholds. Instead, it presents performance characteristics of the new device (Elecsys® Estradiol) and directly compares them to the predicate device (Enzymun-Test® Estradiol). The implicit acceptance criterion is that the performance of the Elecsys® Estradiol Assay is comparable to or better than the predicate device.

Given this, I will construct a table comparing the performance of the Elecsys® Estradiol Assay with the Enzymun-Test® Estradiol Assay, as this constitutes the 'reported device performance' against an implicit 'acceptance' of being equivalent to the predicate.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size for Method Comparison:
  • Least Squares: N = 64
  • Passing/Bablok: N = 74
• Precision: The "N" value for precision testing is 10 for each reported level (Low, Mid, High). This represents the number of replicates used to calculate the mean and %CV for precision for both within-run and total precision.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This is a clinical chemistry assay, not an imaging device requiring expert interpretation. The "ground truth" for method comparison and performance evaluation in such assays is typically established by comparing the new method to a reference method (in this case, the predicate Enzymun-Test Estradiol Assay) or a more definitive method like ID-GC/MS for standardization.

• No experts (like radiologists) were used to establish ground truth in the context of human interpretation, as the device doesn't involve image analysis.
• Assay Standardization: The document mentions "Assay Standardization: ID-GC/MS." This indicates that Isotope Dilution Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (ID-GC/MS), a highly accurate and precise reference method, was used to standardize both the Elecsys® Estradiol Assay and the predicate Enzymun-Test® Estradiol Assay. While not explicitly called "ground truth" for the test set, it serves as the foundational "truth" for calibrating and establishing the accuracy of the assays.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not applicable for this type of in vitro diagnostic device. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving human interpretation of medical images where disagreements among readers need to be resolved. This device directly measures a biomarker concentration.

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 automated in vitro diagnostic assay. It does not involve human readers interpreting images or AI assistance.

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

Yes, the studies presented (precision, linearity, method comparison, interfering substances, specificity) represent the standalone performance of the Elecsys® Estradiol Assay as an automated in vitro diagnostic device. There is no human-in-the-loop performance aspect beyond standard laboratory procedures for sample handling and operating the instrument.

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

The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation can be considered multifaceted:

• Method Comparison: The predicate device, Enzymun-Test® Estradiol Assay, served as the primary comparative "ground truth" for showing substantial equivalence.
• Assay Standardization: ID-GC/MS (Isotope Dilution Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) was used for establishing the foundational accuracy of the assay values, acting as a higher-level "ground truth" for calibration.
• Interference and Specificity: These are determined by spiking known concentrations of potential interferents/cross-reactants and observing their effect on the measured estradiol value, with the known absence of interference/cross-reactivity being the "ground truth."

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not specify a "training set" in the context of machine learning. This is an assay based on established biochemical principles (immunoechemistry) and calibration rather than a machine learning algorithm that requires a separate training set. The calibration curve is generated by 2-point calibration and a master curve provided via the reagent bar code. This master curve and the 2-point calibration define the device's operational parameters, which could be loosely analogous to what a "training set" provides in AI, but it's not a direct comparison.

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

As there is no distinct "training set" for a machine learning algorithm, the concept of "ground truth for the training set" as typically understood in AI/ML is not directly applicable.

However, if we consider the calibration of the assay as analogous to "training":

• The calibration curve is generated using calibrators of known estradiol concentrations. The "ground truth" for these calibrators would be established through careful quantitative analysis using highly accurate reference methods, again likely involving methods traceable to ID-GC/MS or similar definitive techniques. The reagent bar code also provides a "master curve," implying pre-determined, highly characterized calibration data.

Ask a specific question about this device