Search Results

The Sensititre Haemophilus/Streptococcus pneumoniae (HP) MIC Susceptibility plate is an in vitro diagnostic device for quantitative susceptibility testing of Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. This 510(k) is for the addition of Cefotaxime in the dilution range of 0.016 - 4 µgml to the Sensititre Haemophilus influenzae isolates. The "Indications for Use" and clinical significance of Cefotaxime is for: Streptococcus pneumoniae

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for an in vitro diagnostic device, specifically for an antimicrobial susceptibility test plate to detect cefotaxime susceptibility in Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. This type of document, while providing regulatory clearance, does not typically contain detailed study data or acceptance criteria in the format requested.

The information requested, such as specific performance metrics and study design details (sample sizes, expert qualifications, ground truth methods, MRMC studies, etc.), would usually be found in the manufacturer's 510(k) submission itself, which is not publicly released in its entirety in this format.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot generate the table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, nor can I answer most of the detailed questions about the study design. The document confirms that a review was conducted and the device was deemed substantially equivalent to a predicate device, implying that appropriate studies were performed to support this claim, but the details of those studies are not present here.

Here's what can be inferred or stated from the provided text, with many questions remaining unanswered:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Cannot be provided from the given text. The document does not contain a table of performance metrics (e.g., essential agreement, categorical agreement) or defined acceptance criteria for substantial equivalence.

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

• Not specified in the provided text. The document does not mention the sample size of the test set or the country of origin of the data. It also does not state whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

• Not specified in the provided text. This information is typically part of the detailed study protocol, which is not included in the clearance letter.

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

• Not specified in the provided text.

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 device is an in vitro diagnostic antimicrobial susceptibility test, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study with human readers assisting AI is irrelevant.

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

• Implied, but not explicitly detailed. For an in vitro diagnostic device like an antimicrobial susceptibility plate, "standalone performance" refers to the accuracy and reliability of the test itself in determining MICs, without human interpretation of complex images or data. The clearance implies that the device's performance in determining susceptibility has been evaluated, but the specifics are not given.

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

• Not explicitly stated, but can be inferred as a reference method. For antimicrobial susceptibility testing, the typical "ground truth" or reference standard would be a well-established, validated reference method (e.g., broth microdilution or agar dilution performed according to CLSI guidelines) against which the new device's results are compared. The document doesn't explicitly name it but this is standard practice.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable / Not specified. This device is an in vitro diagnostic test plate, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that typically has a "training set." The performance is based on the chemical and biological reactions on the plate.

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

• Not applicable / Not specified. As noted above, there isn't a "training set" in the context of typical machine learning for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device