Search Results

The Herpes Group IgG ELISA kit is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for qualitative determination of IgG antibodies in human serum to Herpes simplex virus. The Herpes Group IgG ELISA kit may be used to evaluate paired sera for the presence seroconversions of IgG as an aid in the diagnosis of Herpes simplex virus infection.

The Herpes Group IgG ELISA test is an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay to detect IgG antibodies to Herpes simplex virus. Purified Herpes Group antigen is attached to a solid phase microtiter well. Diluted test sera is added to each well. If the antibodies are present that recognize the antigen, they will bind to the antigen in the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound antibody. An enzyme labeled anti-human IgG is added to each well. If antibody is present it will bind to the antibody attached to the antigen on the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound conjugate. A substrate solution is added to each well. If enzyme is present the substrate will undergo a color change. After an incubation period the reaction is stopped and the color intensity is measured photometrically, producing an indirect measurement of specific antibody in the patient specimen.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Information

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

   • Total Sample Size (Overall Comparison Study): 603 sera (excluding equivocals from individual calculations).

   • Individual Site Sample Sizes:

     • Site 1: 187 sera (181 used in calculations)
     • Site 2: 152 sera (145 used in calculations)
     • Site 3: 176 sera (170 used in calculations)
     • Site 4: 88 sera (88 used in calculations)

   • Precision Study: 7 sera, each assayed 10 times at 3 different sites (total 90 assays per serum).

   • CF Paired Serum Study: 20 serum pairs, with 11 evaluable pairs.

   • Cross-Reactivity Study: 9 serum samples containing IgG antibodies to EBV, CMV, and VZV.

   • CDC Panel: Not explicitly stated, but described as containing 72% positive and 28% negative samples.

   • Data Provenance:

     • Site 1: R&D laboratory at a commercial company in Maryland. Frozen sera from normals, ages 12-83, various genders, geographical areas. Retrospective.
     • Site 2: R&D laboratory at a commercial company in New York. Frozen sera from normals, ages 17-59, various genders, geographical areas. Retrospective.
     • Site 3: Clinical laboratory in Pennsylvania. Prospective samples sent for Herpes antibody testing. Prospective.
     • Site 4: Clinical laboratory in Wisconsin. Frozen random normal samples. Retrospective.
     • CF Paired Serum Study: From patients suspected of having acute Herpes simplex infection.
     • Cross-Reactivity Study: Serum samples containing specific antibodies.
     • CDC Panel: Serum panel obtained from the CDC.

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

   • The ground truth for the comparison study (relative sensitivity/specificity/agreement) was established by the Clark HSV 1 and HSV 2 ELISA assays (predicate device), not human experts.
   • For the CF Paired Serum Study, the ground truth was Complement Fixation (CF), a laboratory method, not human experts.
   • For the CDC panel, the ground truth was "masked, characterized serum panel" with established positive and negative samples, but the method of characterization (and thus involvement of experts) is not specified.

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

   • There was no stated adjudication method involving human experts for the test set. The comparison was directly against the results of the predicate device (Clark HSV 1 and HSV 2 ELISA).

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:

   • No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study evaluates an ELISA test kit, which is an automated diagnostic assay, and not an AI or human-assisted image interpretation tool. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply.

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

   • Yes, this study represents a standalone performance evaluation of the Wampole Herpes Group IgG ELISA kit. This is an "algorithm only" (or assay-only, in this context) device designed for qualitative determination of IgG antibodies. Its performance is measured directly against a predicate device and other established lab methods, without human interpretation as part of the primary diagnostic step.

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

   • Comparison Studies: The "ground truth" was established by the predicate device, the Clark HSV 1 and HSV 2 ELISA assays. The report explicitly states: "There was not an attempt to correlate the assay's results with disease presence or absence. No judgment can be made on the comparison assay's accuracy to predict disease." This means the ground truth is relative to another diagnostic test, not a definitive clinical diagnosis or pathology.
   • CF Paired Serum Study: The ground truth was based on Complement Fixation (CF) results for seroconversion.
   • Cross-Reactivity Study: The ground truth was based on known presence/absence of other specific antibodies in the serum.
   • CDC Panel: "Masked, characterized serum panel" with established positive and negative results, though specific methodology for characterization is not detailed.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not provide information on a training set. For an ELISA kit, which is a biochemical assay rather than a machine learning algorithm, the concept of a "training set" in the AI sense is generally not applicable. Batch validation and standardization would be part of manufacturing, but not in the same way as training an AI model.

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

   • Not applicable, as no training set (in the context of AI/machine learning) is described.

Ask a specific question about this device