Search Results

Gentian Cystatin C Immunoassay is an in-vitro diagnostic test for quantitative determination of cystatin c in human serum and plasma. The measurement of cystatin c is used in the diagnosis and treatment of renal diseases.

The instruments that can be used with the assay are: The Beckman Coulter™ Synchron® and UniCel® Systems

The Gentian cystatin C Immunoassay is a particle enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA). The immunoparticles are made from activated polystyrene microspheres to which avian anti-human cystatin C antibodies are covalently attached. The immunoparticles and cystatin C form aggregations that change the absorbance signal, depending on the amount of cystatin C present. Measurements obtained by this device are used for the determination of Cystatin C in human serum and plasma. The Gentian cystatin C assay is calibrated with human Cystatin C calibrators. Cystatin C controls are assayed for the verification of the accuracy and precision of the Gentian cystatin C immunoassay.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Gentian Cystatin C Immunoassay, based on your provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For Comparison Between Synchron and Architect (Predicate Device)

All reported coefficients and their confidence intervals fall within the defined acceptance criteria, demonstrating substantial equivalence between the Synchron and the Architect applications.

For Instrument Variation Between Synchron LX20 and UniCel DxC

All reported coefficients and their confidence intervals fall within the defined acceptance criteria, demonstrating substantial equivalence between the Synchron LX20 and UniCel DxC instruments.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Test Set for Synchron vs. Architect Comparison:
  • Sample Size: N=47 serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical samples are implied for method comparison. The country of origin is not specified. It is likely retrospective as part of a method validation study.
• Test Set for Instrument Variation (Synchron LX20 vs. UniCel DxC):
  • Sample Size: N=50 samples for both Passing-Bablock and Bland-Altman analyses.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical samples are implied for method comparison. The country of origin is not specified. It is likely retrospective as part of a method validation study.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Not applicable as this is an in-vitro diagnostic device for quantitative measurement, not an imaging device requiring expert interpretation. The "ground truth" here is the measurement from a reference or predicate device/method.

4. Adjudication Method

• Not applicable for this type of quantitative assay comparison. The assessment is based on statistical comparison of numerical results, not subjective interpretation.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Not applicable. This is an in-vitro diagnostic device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-loop) Performance

• Yes, the performance criteria (e.g., slope, intercept, bias) are for the device's output (measurements of Cystatin C) in comparison to another instrument or predicate device. This is inherently a standalone performance assessment of the instrument/assay itself, without human interpretation as part of the core measurement.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Reference Method/Predicate Device: The ground truth for the comparison study between Synchron and Architect was the measurements obtained from the Gentian Cystatin C Immunoassay on the Abbott Architect c8000 instrument (K071388), which is the predicate device.
• Instrument Equivalence: For the instrument variation study between Synchron LX20 and UniCel DxC, the "ground truth" (or reference for comparison) for each instrument's performance was the result from the other instrument, to demonstrate their equivalence. This is a head-to-head comparison rather than comparison to an absolute gold standard.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not explicitly stated or applicable as described. Clinical chemistry assays typically don't have "training sets" in the same way machine learning algorithms do, but rather undergo calibration using calibrators and quality control materials. The assay itself is a measurement system, not a learning algorithm that generates predictions from input features.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not explicitly stated or applicable as described for a traditional "training set" in a machine learning context. The assay is calibrated using human Cystatin C calibrators. The establishment of the "ground truth" for these calibrators would involve a traceable reference method and standards, but details are not provided in this summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Gentian Cystatin C Immunoassay is an in-vitro diagnostic test for quantitative determination of cystatin c in human serum and plasma. The measurement of cystatin c is used in the diagnosis and treatment of renal diseases.

The Gentian cystatin C immunoassay is a particle enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (PETIA). The immunoparticles are made from activated polystyrene microspheres to which avian anti-human cystatin C antibodies are covalently attached. The immunoparticles and cystatin C form aggregations that change the absorbance signal, depending on the amount of cystatin C present. Measurements obtained by this device are used for the determination of Cystatin C in human serum and plasma. The Gentian C assay is calibrated with human Cystatin C calibrators. Cystatin C controls are assayed for the verification of the accuracy and precision of the Gentian cystatin C immunoassay.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the Gentian Cystatin C Immunoassay, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The core of the study is a comparison to a predicate device, the Dade Behring, Inc., N Latex Cystatin C Test Kit (K003503), rather than explicit numerical acceptance criteria for accuracy or precision. The primary acceptance criteria appear to be substantial equivalence, demonstrated by:

• Acceptable correlation statistics (Slope, Intercept, R-value) when compared to the predicate device across different instruments.
• Demonstration of comparable performance characteristics such as measuring range, linearity, precision, and interference.

Study Information

1. Sample Size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Study 1: 172 (Modular P vs. BNII), 174 (Modular P vs. BN ProSpec)
   • Study 2: 76 (Modular P vs. BN ProSpec), 87 (Architect vs. BN ProSpec)
   • Total N for method comparison: 172 + 174 + 76 + 87 = 509 samples.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical studies are generally implied to be from human blood samples. No country of origin is mentioned, nor whether samples were retrospective or prospective.

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

   • Not applicable. This is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device study comparing the performance of a new assay to a legally marketed predicate assay using patient samples. The "ground truth" here is the measurement from the established predicate device, not clinical expert consensus.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable for this type of IVD comparison study. The study involves quantitative measurements, not subjective evaluations requiring adjudication.

4. 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 device for laboratory determination of a biomarker, not an imaging or diagnostic aid for human readers/clinicians, nor does it involve AI.

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

   • Yes, this is effectively a standalone performance evaluation of the immunoassay system. It measures the device's ability to accurately quantify Cystatin C in samples.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • The "ground truth" for the comparative studies was the results obtained from the predicate device, the Dade Behring, Inc., N Latex Cystatin C Test Kit (K003503). This is a common method for demonstrating substantial equivalence for new IVD assays. Other performance characteristics (linearity, precision, interference) are established against internal analytical standards.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithm development. For a turbidimetric immunoassay, the "training" equivalent would be the development and optimization of the assay reagents and conditions, as well as the calibration process with a set of known standards. The sample size for these development and calibration steps is not specified.

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

   • As above, the concept of a training set with "ground truth" established by experts doesn't directly apply here. The assay is calibrated using human Cystatin C calibrators. These calibrators would have known concentrations of Cystatin C, established through highly accurate reference methods (e.g., gravimetric preparation, reference laboratories, or certified reference materials).

Ask a specific question about this device