Search Results

EliA M2 is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to M2 in human serum and plasma (Li-heparin, EDTA) to aid in the clinical diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA M2 uses the EliA IgG method on the instrument Phadia 2500/5000.

The method-specific reagents are identical with K141375 (EliA M2 on Phadia 250), but are filled in containers specific for the Phadia 2500/5000 instrument. Each device consists of:

• Test Wells: -EliA M2 Wells are coated with native pyruvate dehydrogenase complex from mitochondria and recombinant M2-antigen - 4 carriers (12 wells each), ready to use:
• EliA Sample Diluent: PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide - 6 bottles, 48 mL each, ready to use; or 6 bottles, 400 mL each, ready to use;
• EliA IgG Conjugate 50 or 200: ß-Galactosidase labeled anti-IgG (mouse monoclonal antibodies) in PBS containing BSA and 0.06% (w/v) sodium azide – 6 wedge shaped bottles, 5 mL each, ready to use; or 6 wedge shaped bottles, 19 mL each, ready to use
• EliA IgG Calibrator Strips: Human IgG (0, 4, 10, 20, 100, 600 µg/L) in PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide - 5 strips, 6 singleuse vials per strip, 0.3 mL each, ready to use;
• -EliA IgG Curve Control Strips: Human IgG (20 ug/L) in PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide - 5 strips, 6 single-use vials per strip, 0.3 mL each, ready to use;
• EliA IgG Calibrator Well: Coated with mouse monoclonal antibodies 4 carriers (12 wells each), ready to use.
  The Phadia EliA Immunodiagnostic System is an automated system for immunodiagnostic testing. The EliA reagents are available as modular packages, each purchased separately. All packages are required to carry out EliA M2 tests.

The provided text describes the 510(k) premarket notification for the EliA™ M2 Immunoassay, specifically focusing on its performance on new instrument platforms (Phadia® 2500/5000) compared to a previously cleared device (EliA M2 on Phadia 250 instrument, K141375).

This document is for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, which measures IgG antibodies to M2 to aid in the clinical diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis. The "device" in this context is the immunoassay system, which includes the reagents and the instrument platforms.

Therefore, the acceptance criteria and study details discussed pertain to the analytical performance of this IVD device. The concepts of "human readers," "expert consensus for image interpretation," "MRMC," and "standalone algorithm performance" are not applicable here, as this is not an AI/ML imaging device or a device requiring human interpretation of complex visual data. The "ground truth" for an IVD diagnostic test is typically established through reference methods, established clinical diagnoses, or highly characterized samples.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study proof based on the provided text, focusing on the analytical performance of the immunoassay system.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core of the "acceptance criteria" for this 510(k) submission is demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device. This is achieved by showing that the analytical performance characteristics of the EliA M2 immunoassay on the Phadia 2500/5000 instruments are comparable and acceptable. The document highlights various analytical performance parameters with their respective results.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this is an IVD device, the "acceptance criteria" aren't explicitly stated as pass/fail thresholds in a table, but rather implied by the data presented for substantial equivalence. The document presents the study results for various analytical performance metrics.

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

• Precision/Reproducibility:
  • Sample Size: Each sample was tested in four replicates/run, over 7 days, on 3 instruments. This totals 84 replicates per sample (4 replicates * 7 days * 3 instruments = 84 replicates). The document doesn't specify the number of distinct "samples" (control materials or patient samples) used to establish precision at different concentration levels, but it shows results for 5 different mean concentration levels (1.7, 4.0, 5.9, 74.8, 175.9 U/mL). Typically, these would be control materials or pooled patient samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical studies for cut-off determination (K141375) and reference ranges mentioned a "Caucasian population obtained from a blood bank." For analytical studies like precision, standard reference materials or well-characterized internal controls are commonly used. The study was performed over 7 days.
• Linearity/Assay Reportable Range:
  • Sample Size: Four patient serum samples were diluted.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin or retrospective/prospective nature for these specific samples.
• Detection Limit (LoB, LoD, LoQ):
  • Sample Size:
    • LoB: One blank sample, measured in twelve replicates in each of six runs (72 determinations total).
    • LoD: Five low-level samples, measured in twelve replicates in each of six runs (360 low level replicates total).
    • LoQ: 360 determinations.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.
• Method Comparison (Instrument Comparison):
  • Sample Size: More than 100 samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin or retrospective/prospective nature. Samples were run in "single replicates" on one Phadia 250 and one Phadia 2500/5000 instrument.

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

• Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay system, not an AI/ML imaging device that requires human expert interpretation of visual data. The "ground truth" for IVD laboratory tests is typically established by:
  • Quantitative values: Directly measured by reference methods or highly characterized (e.g., gravimetric, spectrophotometric) standards traceability.
  • Qualitative results (positive/negative): Defined by cut-off values derived from clinical studies, often comparing against a gold standard diagnostic method (e.g., biopsy, established clinical diagnosis of PBC).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. This concept (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) relates to consensus reading in imaging studies. For an IVD assay, results are quantitative values or interpreted based on pre-defined cut-offs.

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 IVD immunoassay device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging system. There are no "human readers" in the context of image interpretation improving with AI assistance. The device directly measures antibody levels.

6. If a Standalone (i.e. Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the Loop Performance) Was Done

• Partially applicable, but in a different sense. The device itself performs the measurement and provides a quantitative result. The "performance" demonstrated (precision, linearity, LoD, method comparison) is inherently "standalone" in that it's the instrument and reagents producing the values. The "human-in-the-loop" would be the clinician interpreting the numerical result in conjunction with other clinical findings for diagnosis. There isn't an "algorithm" making a diagnostic call independently like in an imaging AI; rather, it's a measurement system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Performance:
  • Reference materials and statistical methods: For precision, linearity, and detection limit, the ground truth is based on highly characterized control materials, serial dilutions, and established statistical methodologies (e.g., CLSI guidelines EP05-A3, EP06-A, EP17-A).
• Clinical Performance (Cut-off determination and comparison):
  • Clinical diagnosis and predicate device comparison: The clinical cut-off values for "Negative," "Equivocal," and "Positive" were "derived from the clinical studies (s. K141375)." This implies that the cut-offs were established using patient samples with confirmed clinical diagnoses of primary biliary cirrhosis (or healthy controls) as the ground truth in the predicate device's original studies.
  • For the current submission, the "ground truth" for the method comparison study (comparing Phadia 2500/5000 to Phadia 250) is the result generated by the predicate device (EliA M2 on Phadia 250 instrument). The goal is to show the new instrument produces substantially equivalent results to the established predicate.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable in the AI/ML sense. This is an immunoassay system; it does not have a "training set" in the context of machine learning model development. The development process would involve formulation optimization, reagent stability testing, and calibration studies, but not "training data" for an algorithm that learns patterns. The calibration curve is established using calibrators provided with the kit.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8. For IVDs, the "ground truth" for establishing a calibration curve (which is somewhat analogous to "training" the system to interpret raw signals into quantitative units) is defined by the known concentrations of the calibrator materials provided in the kit. These calibrators are rigorously manufactured and assigned values traceable to reference standards.

Ask a specific question about this device

EliA M2 is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to M2 in human serum and plasma (heparin, EDTA) to aid in the clinical diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA M2 uses the EliA IgG method on the instruments Phadia 100 and Phadia 250.

EliA M2 Positive Control 100 is intended for laboratory use in monitoring the performance of in vitro measurement of M2 antibodies with Phadia 100 using the EliA IgG method.

EliA M2 Positive Control 250 is intended for laboratory use in monitoring the performance of in vitro measurement of M2 antibodies with Phadia 250 using the EliA IgG method.

The new device belongs to a fully integrated and automated system for immunodiagnostic testing. It comprises a Fluorescence-Immunoassay test system using EliA single wells as the solid phase and is intended to be performed on the instruments Phadia 100 and Phadia 250.

The conjugate for the EliA IgG method is mouse anti-human IgG beta-galactosidase, which uses 4-Methylumbelliferyl-ßD-Galactoside as substrate.

The total IgG calibration is based on a set of six WHO-standardized IgG Calibrators derived from human serum. They are used to establish an initial calibration curve, which may be used for up to 28 days on additional assays and can be stored by the instrument. Each additional assay includes calibrator (curve) controls that have to recover in defined ranges to ensure that the stored calibration curve is still valid. The Fluorescence-Immunoassay test system includes test-, method-specific and general reagents that are packaged as separate units.

The provided text describes a submission for an in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI/ML-based medical device. Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI/ML device studies (such as MRMC studies, training set size, expert adjudication, etc.) are not applicable and cannot be extracted from this document.

However, I can extract information regarding acceptance criteria and device performance from the provided text, focusing on the clinical study that supports its intended use.

Here's the information based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in the form of a table. However, it implies that the device's performance needs to be comparable to the predicate device and show appropriate results with clinically defined sera and normal populations.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the specific number of samples for the test set used in the comparison study, clinically defined sera, or normal population. It mentions "a data set including results obtained within a comparison study," "results obtained for clinically defined sera," and "results obtained for samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)."
• Data Provenance: Not specified in terms of country of origin. The study appears to be retrospective, using existing "clinically defined sera" and "samples from apparently healthy subjects."

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Not applicable. This is an immunoassay, not an AI/ML device requiring expert interpretation of images or other complex data for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" for this type of device would typically be the clinical diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis, likely established by standard clinical criteria, not by individual experts assessing the samples themselves for ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. This is an immunoassay. The concept of adjudication for a test set typically applies to areas where human interpretation or labeling is involved, such as image analysis.

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 immunoassay, not an AI/ML device, and no human reader interpretation is described.

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

This refers to the performance of the immunoassay device itself. The study described focuses on the comparison of the new immunoassay device (EliA M2) to a predicate device (Quanta Lite M2 EP (MIT3), INOVA K052262), and its performance with clinically defined sera and healthy subjects. The entire system (reagents, instrument Phadia 100/250, and software for evaluation) constitutes the "standalone" performance of the diagnostic test.

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

The ground truth for the "clinically defined sera" and "samples from apparently healthy subjects" would be based on the established clinical diagnosis of Primary Biliary Cirrhosis (PBC) for positive cases and the absence of PBC for healthy subjects, determined through a combination of clinical findings and other laboratory tests. The document implies a clinical diagnosis.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is an immunoassay, not an AI/ML device that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The "training" of the device is inherent in its design and calibration, not through data learning.

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

Not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device