Search Results

an in vitro diagnostic reagent test kit for the quantitative analysis of gentamicin in human serum or plasma.

modified Emit® 2000 Gentamicin Assay, an in vitro diagnostic reagent test kit for the quantitative analysis of gentamicin in human serum or plasma.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in the context of device acceptance criteria and a supporting study:

The provided document describes the Emit® 2000 Gentamicin Assay and Emit® 2000 Gentamicin Calibrators, an in vitro diagnostic reagent test kit. The study aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Abbott TDx Gentamicin Assay (K904226).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as clear pass/fail thresholds. Instead, it presents performance metrics and implies that these values demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device. Therefore, I will create a table based on the reported precision and accuracy for the Emit® 2000 Gentamicin Assay.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: 104 patient samples were evaluated for accuracy.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It refers to "patient samples," which implies human subjects. The study is prospective in the sense that the samples were analyzed with the Emit 2000 Gentamicin Assay to compare against the predicate, but it doesn't specify if these were newly collected samples specifically for the study or retrospectively collected. The term "patient samples" often implies retrospectively collected samples from a clinical setting, but this is not explicitly stated.

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

This study does not involve human experts establishing a "ground truth" in the typical sense (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). The ground truth for this comparative accuracy study is the results from the predicate device (Abbott TDx Gentamicin Assay), which is itself an analytical device. Therefore, the concepts of "number of experts" and "qualifications of experts" are not applicable here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. There was no human interpretation or adjudication involved, as the comparison was between two analytical devices.

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 not an AI-assisted diagnostic study involving human readers. It's a comparison of two in vitro diagnostic assays.

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

Yes, a standalone performance assessment was conducted for the Emit® 2000 Gentamicin Assay, as described under "A. Within-Run and Total Precision" and "B. Accuracy." The device's performance was evaluated based on its own output against established reference methods (for precision) or the predicate device (for accuracy). There is no "human-in-the-loop" component in the operation or result generation of these assays.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the accuracy study was the results obtained from the predicate device, the Abbott TDx Gentamicin Assay (FPIA). For the precision study, commercial controls with known analyte levels would serve as a form of "ground truth" or reference material.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is an analytical immunoassay kit, not a machine learning model that requires a training set. The "development" and "calibration" process for such a kit involves different methodologies.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device