Search Results

Automated latex enhanced immunoassay for the quantitative determination of von Willebrand Factor Antigen (VWF:Ag) in human citrated plasma on IL Coagulation Systems.

The VWF:Ag kit is a latex particle enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay to quantify VWF:Ag in plasma. When a plasma containing VWF:Ag is mixed with the Latex Reagent and the Reaction Buffer included in the kit, the coated latex particles agglutinate. The degree of agglutination is directly proportional to the concentration of VWF:Ag in the sample and is determined by measuring the decrease of transmitted light caused by the aggregates.

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) submission for the HemosIL von Willebrand Factor Antigen assay. This submission focuses on a modification to the reagent's open vial stability claim, reducing it from 3 months to 14 days, rather than introducing a new AI/ML device or significant performance changes. Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI/ML device performance, ground truth, and expert evaluation are not directly applicable.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, focusing on the relevant sections for acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided text. The text only mentions "testing."
• Data Provenance: Not specified in the provided text.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not specified.

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)

Not applicable. This submission concerns a chemical reagent's stability, not an AI/ML device requiring expert ground truth for interpretation. The "ground truth" here is the chemical performance of the reagent over time.

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

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for subjective interpretations, typically in diagnostic imaging or similar fields. This study assesses objective chemical stability.

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/ML device or a diagnostic interpretation study involving human readers.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm. The study assesses the standalone performance of the reagent's stability.

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

The "ground truth" for this study is the measured performance characteristics of the HemosIL von Willebrand Factor Antigen reagent (e.g., accuracy, precision, linearity) after being opened and stored for various durations up to 14 days, compared to its performance when fresh or within its original 3-month stability claim. The study aims to demonstrate that the reagent's performance remains acceptable throughout the 14-day open-vial period.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML model being developed. The study is a stability test.

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

Not applicable. Refer to point 8.

Summary of the Study:

The study described is an open vial stability study for the HemosIL von Willebrand Factor Antigen reagent. The purpose was to provide data to support a change in the labeled open vial stability claim from 3 months to 14 days.

• Study Design: The study was likely a prospective laboratory study where the reagent was opened, stored at 2-8°C, and then tested at various time points (e.g., day 0, day 7, day 14) to assess its performance.
• Methodology: The testing was performed in accordance with the established CLSI EP25-A guideline, which provides guidance for evaluating reagent stability. This guideline would specify how to conduct the study, what performance parameters to measure (e.g., accuracy, precision, linearity), and acceptance criteria.
• Acceptance Criteria for the Study: While not explicitly listed in quantitative terms, the acceptance criteria would dictate the permissible deviation in performance (e.g., % bias, % CV) of the open and stored reagent compared to a freshly opened reagent or a reference measurement, over the 14-day period. The text states "Testing verified all acceptance criteria were met," implying these criteria were predefined and successfully achieved.
• Conclusion: The study demonstrated that the reagent maintained its defined performance specifications for 14 days after opening when stored at 2-8°C, thus supporting the modified insert claim.

Ask a specific question about this device

Automated latex enhanced immunoassay for the quantitative determination of von Willebrand Factor Antigen (VWF:Ag) in human citrated plasma on IL Coagulation Systems.

The VWF:Ag kit is a latex particle enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay to quantify VWF:Ag in plasma. When a plasma containing VWF:Ag is mixed with the Latex Reagent and the Reaction Buffer included in the kit, the coated latex particles agglutinate. The degree of agglutination is directly proportional to the concentration of VWF:Ag in the sample and is determined by measuring the decrease of transmitted light caused by the aggregates.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for the HemosIL von Willebrand Factor Antigen device. It describes a Special 510(k) submission rather than a traditional premarket notification that would typically include substantial new performance data. The core of this submission is a modification to a limitation/interference claim regarding Rheumatoid Factor (RF) rather than a broader study proving overall device performance against new acceptance criteria.

Therefore, the requested information, particularly regarding a comprehensive study with a test set, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and standalone performance for an AI/algorithm-based device, is not present in this document. This submission pertains to an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay that measures a biological marker, not an AI-powered diagnostic device.

However, I can extract the relevant information from the document regarding the acceptance criteria related to the modified claim and the "study" (which in this context refers to the basis for the change, here being a literature reference and internal design control activities rather than a new clinical trial).

Here's an attempt to answer based on the provided document, while clarifying what information is missing due to the nature of this particular 510(k) submission:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for HemosIL von Willebrand Factor Antigen (K200033) - Modifed Rheumatoid Factor Interference Claim

This 510(k) submission is a Special 510(k), indicating a minor change to an already cleared device. The "acceptance criteria" and "study" are specifically focused on the modified claim regarding Rheumatoid Factor interference, rather than a broad re-evaluation of the device's overall performance. No new clinical study was conducted for this specific submission to prove general device performance. Instead, the modification is based on internal design control activities and a literature reference.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criterion for this specific modification is the non-interference within a certain concentration range of Rheumatoid Factor (RF). The "reported device performance" reflects a change in the claimed non-interference level.

Note on "Acceptance Criteria" for a Special 510(k): For this type of submission, the primary acceptance criterion is that the modified device remains substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the change does not introduce new questions of safety or effectiveness. For the specific change (RF interference), the acceptance is based on the rationale provided (literature reference). No specific quantitative performance metric (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for the RF non-interference claim is explicitly stated, other than the new 50 IU/mL threshold being deemed acceptable.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. The document explicitly states: "Performance data are unnecessary since the current Rheumatoid Factor claim in the HemosIL von Willebrand Factor Antigen insert is being replaced with a limitation and a supporting literature reference." This indicates that a dedicated new test set for this specific change was not used for performance validation.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated as new data was not generated. The basis for the change is a "supporting literature reference."

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

• Not applicable. There was no new test set requiring expert ground truth establishment for this specific change.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. No new test set requiring adjudication was used.

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

• Not applicable. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

• Not applicable. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic assay. The concept of "standalone performance" typically applies to AI algorithms operating independently of human interpretation.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the modified RF interference claim: The "ground truth" for the new claim (non-interference up to 50 IU/mL) is based on a "supporting literature reference" combined with internal design control activities and possibly previous knowledge/studies that led to the revised understanding of RF interference. No new direct "ground truth" (e.g., from pathology, clinical outcomes, or expert consensus on new data) was established for this specific special 510(k).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is an IVD assay, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. No training set was used.

Summary of Key Takeaway from the Document:

This 510(k) submission (K200033) is a Special 510(k) for the HemosIL von Willebrand Factor Antigen. The purpose is to modify the product insert's "Limitations/Interfering substances" section concerning Rheumatoid Factor interference. The submission states that no new performance data was generated or deemed necessary for this change because it relies on existing knowledge and a literature reference. Therefore, the detailed requirements for a study proving device performance (especially for an AI/algorithm) are not met by this particular regulatory filing, as it pertains to a different type of device and a very specific, limited modification.

Ask a specific question about this device