Search Results

The EUROIMMUN Anti-West Nile Virus ELISA (IgM) is intended for the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to West Nile virus in human serum and plasma (K+EDTA, Li+-heparin). This test is intended as an aid in the presumptive laboratory diagnosis of West Nile virus infection in patients with clinical symptoms consistent with meningitis/encephalitis, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. Positive results must be confirmed by the plaque reduction test (PRNT) or by using the current CDC guidelines for diagnosis of this disease.

The assay characteristics have not been established for testing cord blood, neonates, prenatal screening, and general population screening of patients without symptoms of meningoencephalitis. This assay is not FDA cleared or approved for testing blood or plasma donors.

Warning: Cross-reactivity with IgM to Dengue virus, Malarialanti-Plasmodium falciparum and Parvovirus B19 has been observed with the EUROIMMUN Anti-West Nile Virus ELISA (IgM). Reactive results must be reported with a caution statement regarding possible IgM cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses.

Patient serum or plasma samples are diluted 1:101 in sample buffer and incubated for 10 minutes at room temperature to allow IgG/RF separation. 100 ul of each diluted patient sample and pre-diluted controls and calibrator are added to the antigen coated microtiter wells and incubated for 60 minutes at +37°C. After incubation the microtiter well strips are washed 3 times with wash buffer to remove unbound antibodies and 100 ul of the anti-human IgM enzyme conjugate reagent is added to each microtiter well. After an additional 30 minutes incubation at room temperature, the microtiter wells are again washed 3 times with wash buffer to remove any unbound enzyme conjugate and 100 ul of the chromogen substrate is added. The strips are incubated for 15 minutes at room temperature and 100 ul stop solution is added. The microtiter placed in an ELISA reader and read at a wavelength of 450 nm and a reference wavelength of between 620 nm and 650 nm within 30 minutes.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the EUROIMMUN Anti-West Nile Virus ELISA (IgM):

Note: This document describes an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, not a typical AI/ML device. Therefore, the concepts of "test set," "training set," "experts to establish ground truth," "adjudication method," and "MRMC comparative effectiveness study" do not directly apply in the same way they would to an AI-powered image analysis or diagnostic tool. Instead, the performance is evaluated against a predicate device and/or a reference standard like PRNT (Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test), and clinical studies involve comparisons of the device's results with these established methods.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device, being a diagnostic test, are generally based on sensitivity and specificity relative to a reference standard or a predicate device. The document explicitly states the ranges for these measures.

Study Details (Applicable sections)

For IVD devices like this, the "study" typically refers to the analytical and clinical performance evaluations.

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

• Clinical Study I (Prospective):
  • Sample Size: 155 samples from patients suspected of West Nile Virus infection.
  • Provenance: Collected at hospitals and clinics across the US in 2015 (prospective).
• Clinical Study II:
  • Sample Size: 398 serum samples.
  • Provenance: Collected prospectively from patients suspected of West Nile virus infection at a clinical laboratory in the midwest (US).
• Clinical Study III:
  • Sample Size: 99 clinically collected serum samples, positive for WNV IgM.
  • Provenance: Public health agency/laboratory in Canada.
• Analytical Specificity/Cross-Reactivity Study:
  • Sample Size: 692 serologically characterized seropositive specimens.
  • Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but these are "serologically characterized seropositive specimens from patients with diseases other than WNV."
• Assay Cut-off Establishment:
  • Sample Size: 18 sera from clinically characterized positive WNV patients and 150 sera from normal healthy blood donors.
  • Provenance: Normal healthy blood donors from a "non-endemic region." Clinical characterization implies real patient data.
• Expected Values (US Studies):
  • Sample Size: 553 samples.
  • Provenance: Prospectively collected from US population.
• Matrix Comparison:
  • Sample Size: 20 determinations for EDTA plasma, 20 for Li-heparin plasma.
  • Provenance: Created from 5 different sets of normal blood donor samples (serum, EDTA plasma, Li-heparin plasma) that were spiked with positive serum samples.

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 concept doesn't apply directly to an IVD device like an ELISA. The "ground truth" for clinical samples is established by:
  • Clinical diagnosis/symptoms: "patients with clinical symptoms consistent with meningitis/encephalitis" (as per Indications for Use).
  • Reference standard tests: Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT) or current CDC guidelines for diagnosis are mentioned as confirmatory methods.
  • Serological characterization: For cross-reactivity studies, specimens are "serologically characterized."
  • Predicate device results: The predicate device (Focus Diagnostics West Nile Virus IgM DxSelect™ ELISA) serves as a comparative "truth" in many agreements.

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

• Not applicable in the way it's used for AI studies. For the clinical studies comparing with the predicate device, it states: "Average of three results for each clinical specimen tested at three sites was considered to calculate the positive percent and negative percent agreement between the EUROIMMUN Anti-West Nile Virus ELISA (IgM) vs reference assay." This implies an averaging or consensus approach for the new device results across sites, but not an adjudication of ambiguous ground truth. The ground truth itself (PRNT or predicate result) is the established reference.

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 as this is an in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting AI output.

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

• The device being an ELISA assay inherently operates in a "standalone" fashion (algorithm/assay only) once the sample is processed, generating quantitative results that are interpreted by predefined cut-offs. There isn't an "algorithm" in the AI sense, but rather a biochemical reaction leading to a detectable signal.

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

The ground truth or reference standard for validation was:

• Clinical diagnosis and symptoms: For assessing the aid in diagnosis for patients with meningitis/encephalitis symptoms.
• Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT): A gold standard method for arbovirus serology, explicitly mentioned for confirmation and in Clinical Study I.
• Current CDC guidelines for diagnosis of this disease: Another established reference.
• Predicate device (Focus Diagnostics West Nile Virus IgM DxSelect™ ELISA): Used as a comparative reference for positive and negative agreement.
• Serologically characterized seropositive specimens: For the cross-reactivity study.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• For IVD devices, there isn't a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Instead, the device's design, reagent formulations, and cut-off values are established through development studies.
• The "Assay Cut-off" was established using:
  • 18 sera from clinically characterized positive West Nile virus patients.
  • 150 sera from normal healthy blood donors from a non-endemic region.
  • This set of 168 individuals could be considered analogous to a development/calibration set used to define the diagnostic thresholds.

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

• Again, not a "training set" in the ML context. For the samples used to establish the assay cut-off:
  • The 18 samples were from "clinically characterized positive West Nile virus patients." This implies diagnosis through established clinical and laboratory methods (likely including PRNT or CDC guidelines).
  • The 150 samples were from "normal healthy blood donors," implying they were confirmed negative for WNV.

Ask a specific question about this device