Search Results

An enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the detection of IgG antibodies to complexes formed by oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL) with ß2-glycoprotein I (ß2GPI) in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus-like disorders (antiphospholipid syndrome).

The IgG Anti-AtherOx Test Kit is an indirect ELISA detecting IgG anti-oxLDL/B2GPI antibodies. Diluted serum samples, calibrator(s), and controls are incubated in microwells coated with the oxLDL-ß2GPI complex. Incubation allows the IgG anti-oxLDL-B2GPI antibody present in the samples to react with the immobilized antigen complex. After the removal of unbound serum proteins by washing, anti-human IgG antibodies, labeled with horseradish peroxidase (HRP), are added forming complexes with the bound IgG anti-oxLDL-B2GPI antibody. Following another washing step, the bound enzyme-antibody conjugate is assayed by the addition of a solution containing tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as the chromogenic substrate. Color develops in the wells at an intensity proportional to the serum concentration of IgG anti-oxLDL-B2GPI antibody. Results are obtained by reading the OD (optical density or absorbance) of each well in a spectrophotometer. Calibrator sera are provided, with the IgG anti-oxLDL-B2GPI antibody concentration expressed in G Units. A log-log regression analysis is performed with calibrator values plotted against calibrator mean ODs. Controls and patient results are determined from the calibration curve.

Here's an analysis of the provided 510(k) summary regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria:

The document provided does not contain explicit "acceptance criteria" for clinical performance in the typical sense of metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or agreement thresholds against an established reference standard. Instead, the clinical testing section focuses on demonstrating agreement with a legally marketed predicate device (REAADS IgG Anti-Cardiolipin Test Kit) across various patient populations. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the observed agreement rates with the predicate, rather than set a-priori.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given the nature of the submission (demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device), the primary "acceptance criterion" appears to be sufficient agreement with the predicate device across different patient populations.

Study Information:

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: A total of 448 serum samples were tested:
     • 205 from healthy control patients.
     • 99 from patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
     • 143 from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study appears to be retrospective as it uses "serum samples from" patients, implying they were collected prior to the study for testing.

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

   • The document does not state that experts were used to establish a "ground truth" for the test set. Instead, the device's performance is compared to a legally marketed predicate device (REAADS IgG Anti-Cardiolipin Test Kit). The predicate device itself serves as the reference for comparison, not an independent expert consensus.

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

   • There is no mention of an adjudication method in the context of expert review or ground truth establishment. The comparison is directly between the new device and the predicate device.

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:

   • This is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device (ELISA test kit) for detecting antibodies in serum. It is not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device or a device involving human readers/interpreters in the presented study. Therefore, an MRMC study or evaluation of human reader improvement with AI assistance is not applicable to this submission.

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

   • This is an IVD test kit. The "standalone" performance is essentially what is presented in the study: the direct comparison of the assay's results against the predicate device. There is no human-in-the-loop component in the interpretation of the test results described here beyond the laboratory technician performing the assay and reading the ODs.

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

   • The "ground truth" (or reference standard for comparison) in this 510(k) submission is the performance of the REAADS IgG Anti-Cardiolipin Test Kit, a legally marketed predicate device. The clinical diagnoses of the patients (healthy controls, RA, SLE, APS) serve as classification for the samples, but the direct comparison is test-vs-test.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" for the purpose of machine learning or algorithm development. This is a traditional ELISA assay kit. The provided clinical study data (448 samples) represent the "test set" for performance evaluation, not a training set. Development and optimization of the assay would typically involve internal validation, but those details are not part of this summary in terms of a "training set" as understood in AI/ML contexts.

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

   • As there's no mention of a "training set" in the context of algorithm development, this question is not applicable. The development of the assay itself would have involved establishing specific assay parameters, but the mechanism for doing so isn't detailed as "ground truth establishment" for a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

This is an indirect fluorescent antibody test for screening and semiquantitative detection of IgG anti-nDNA antibody in human serum. This test system is to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus.

This is an indirect fluorescent antibody test for screening and semiquantitative detection of IgG anti-nDNA antibody in human serum.

Immuno Concepts IgG Anti-nDNA Fluorescent Test System - Acceptance Criteria and Study Details

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The study compares the Immuno Concepts IgG Anti-nDNA Fluorescent Test System to a legally marketed predicate device, "Crithidia lucilliae DS DNA Kit (Diagnostic Use)" (K930987). The acceptance criteria are implicitly derived from the reported statistics based on this comparison.

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

• Sample Size: 223 samples
  • 121 samples submitted to clinical laboratories for anti-nDNA testing.
  • 100 blood donors.
  • 2 WHO standards known to contain anti-nDNA antibodies.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but based on the context of samples submitted to clinical laboratories and blood donors, it is likely retrospective clinical samples. The country of origin is not specified.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable. The ground truth for comparative effectiveness was established by the predicate device's results, not by independent experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. The study is a direct comparison to a predicate device, where the predicate device's results serve as the reference. There is no mention of an adjudication process by human readers for the primary comparison.

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

• MRMC Study: No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed as described. This study directly compared the performance of the new device to a predicate device, rather than assessing human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Standalone Performance: Yes, a standalone performance study was done in the sense that the device's diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) were calculated based on its output compared to a reference standard (the predicate device). The algorithm's output was directly compared to the predicate's output for all 223 samples.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth used for the primary comparative effectiveness study was the results obtained from the legally marketed predicate device ("Crithidia lucilliae DS DNA Kit (Diagnostic Use)"). Additionally, two WHO standards known to contain anti-nDNA antibodies were used as positive controls, and samples submitted to clinical laboratories and blood donors provided a range of reactivity.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training: Not applicable. This device is an indirect fluorescent antibody test kit, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The device's performance is inherently based on its physical and chemical components and their interaction, which are generally developed through R&D and quality control, rather than machine learning training.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as explained in point 8. The "training" for this type of test involves developing and optimizing the reagents and assay procedure, ensuring consistency and reliability through standard laboratory practices and quality control, not by processing a "training set" with established ground truth labels for an algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

This assay is designed for the in vitro measurement of human IgG3 in serum using the MININEH analyzer as measurement of human 1965 in berail ablig one and in the diagnosis of the

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for "IgG and IgG Subclass Nephelometric Diagnostic Test Kits" (Trade Name: Minineph IgG3 Antiserum Device Name). It confirms the device's substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

However, this document does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria and study data requested in your prompt.

The letter focuses on regulatory clearance, not the technical specifications, performance data, or study methodologies that would typically be found in a 510(k) summary, clinical study report, or a more comprehensive technical document. It mentions that the device is for "in vitro measurement of human IgG3 in serum using the MININEPH analyzer."

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions about acceptance criteria, reported performance, sample sizes, ground truth, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies, as this information is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IGG Flex™ reagent cartridge for the Dimension® clinical chemistry system is an in vitro diagnostic test intended to quantitatively measure immunoglobulin G (IgG) in serum and plasma.

The IGG Flex™ reagent cartridge for the Dimension® clinical chemistry system is a quantitative, turbidimetric assay based on the precipitation of IgG by its polyclonal antibodies.a IgG from serum or plasma reacts with its polyclonal antibodies to form an immunoprecipitate. Addition of polyethylene glycol accelerates the formation of the precipitate. Turbidity created by immunoprecipitation is measured as bichromatic endpoint measurements at 340 and 700 nm. The increase in turbidity is proportional to the concentration of IgG and it is calculated from a five point calibration curve.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the IGG Flex™ Reagent Cartridge, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 111 clinical patient samples.
• Data Provenance: The text does not explicitly state the country of origin. It indicates "clinical patient samples," suggesting real-world patient data. The study is retrospective in nature, as it involves comparing the new device's measurements on existing "clinical patient samples" to a legally marketed predicate device.

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

This information is not provided in the document. For in vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices like this, the "ground truth" is typically established by measurements from a well-characterized, legally marketed predicate device, rather than direct expert interpretation of raw data. The predicate device's results serve as the reference.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable/provided as the study design is a direct comparison to a predicate device, not an interpretation-based task requiring expert adjudication. The comparison method involved running the same samples on both devices and analyzing the statistical correlation of the quantitative results.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is more common for imaging devices where human readers interpret diagnostic images. The IGG Flex™ is an in vitro diagnostic reagent and system, and its performance is assessed through quantitative agreement (correlation) with a predicate device, not by human reader interpretation. Therefore, there is no effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, in effect, a standalone performance study was done. The IGG Flex™ Reagent Cartridge, as an in vitro diagnostic assay on the Dimension® clinical chemistry system, operates as a standalone automated system. The reported performance (correlation, slope, intercept) reflects the direct output of this system compared to the predicate device, without direct human intervention in the result generation or interpretation for the comparison study itself. While humans operate the instruments, the "performance" here refers to the analytical capabilities of the assay and instrument combination.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the comparative study was established by the measurements obtained from the legally marketed predicate device: the Beckman Array® Immunoglobulin G Method. The comparison was directly between the quantitative results of the IGG Flex™ system and the Beckman Array® system for the same patient samples.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a specific "training set" or "training set sample size" for the IGG Flex™ reagent. This is typical for IVD assays. The development of such assays involves analytical validation, calibration, and optimization, which would use various samples, but these are not usually referred to as a "training set" in the same way machine learning algorithms are. The reported study focuses on clinical validation/comparison.

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

Since no specific "training set" is mentioned in the context of algorithm development (as it's not an AI/ML device), the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set in that sense is not applicable here. The ground truth for the reported study (comparison to predicate) was the Beckman Array® Immunoglobulin G Method results, as explained in point 7. For the initial development and calibration of the IGG Flex™ assay itself, ground truth would have been established through a combination of analytical methods, reference materials, and established laboratory practices to ensure accurate IgG quantification.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Immunoglobulin G assay is used for the quantitation of immunoglobulin G in human serum or plasma. Measurement of immunoglobulin G aids in the diagnosis of abnormal protein metabolism and the body's lack of ability to resist infectious agents.

Immunoglobulin G is an in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of immunoglobulin G in human serum or plasma. Antigen in the sample bonds to the specific antibody in the reagent, forming an immune complex. The immune complex causes an increase in light scattering, measured by reading turbidity at 700 nm, which correlates with the concentration of immunoglobulin G in the sample.

{
  "acceptance_criteria_and_performance": {
    "table": [
      {
        "criterion": "Correlation Coefficient",
        "acceptance_criteria": "> 0.99",
        "reported_performance": "0.9966"
      },
      {
        "criterion": "Slope (vs. predicate)",
        "acceptance_criteria": "Close to 1",
        "reported_performance": "0.957"
      },
      {
        "criterion": "Y-intercept (vs. predicate)",
        "acceptance_criteria": "Close to 0",
        "reported_performance": "40.555 mg/dL"
      },
      {
        "criterion": "Total %CV for Level 1/Panel 401 (Precision)",
        "acceptance_criteria": "Low variability",
        "reported_performance": "2.1%"
      },
      {
        "criterion": "Total %CV for Level 2/Panel 402 (Precision)",
        "acceptance_criteria": "Low variability",
        "reported_performance": "1.7%"
      },
      {
        "criterion": "Assay Range",
        "acceptance_criteria": "Clinically relevant range",
        "reported_performance": "21.0 to 6,147.43 mg/dL"
      },
      {
        "criterion": "Limit of Quantitation (Sensitivity)",
        "acceptance_criteria": "Low detection limit",
        "reported_performance": "21.0 mg/dL"
      }
    ],
    "study_description": "Comparative performance studies were conducted using the AEROSET™ System. The Immunoglobulin G assay method comparison yielded acceptable correlation with the Boehringer Mannheim Immunoglobulin G assay on the Hitachi 717 Analyzer. Precision studies were conducted using the Immunoglobulin G assay, including within-run, between-run, and between-day studies using two levels of control material."
  },
  "sample_size_test_set": "Not explicitly stated for comparative performance studies. Precision studies used two levels of control material.",
  "data_provenance": "Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). Studies were conducted using the AEROSET™ System.",
  "number_of_experts_ground_truth": "N/A - This is an in vitro diagnostic assay with a predicate device comparison, not an imaging device requiring expert consensus for ground truth.",
  "qualifications_of_experts": "N/A",
  "adjudication_method": "N/A",
  "mrmc_comparative_effectiveness_study": "No, this is not an MRMC study. This is a substantial equivalence study for an in vitro diagnostic assay comparing performance to a predicate device.",
  "standalone_performance_study": "Yes, standalone performance was assessed through precision studies (within-run, between-run, and between-day variability) and the assay range/sensitivity determination.",
  "type_of_ground_truth_test_set": "The 'ground truth' for the comparative performance study was the results obtained from the predicate device (Boehringer Mannheim Immunoglobulin G assay on the Hitachi 717 Analyzer). For precision and sensitivity, the ground truth is derived from established laboratory methods and control materials.",
  "sample_size_training_set": "Not applicable, as this is an in vitro diagnostic assay not employing machine learning for 'training' in the traditional sense.",
  "ground_truth_for_training_set_established": "Not applicable."
}

Ask a specific question about this device

An enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection and semiquantitation of IgG anti-gliadin antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of patients with celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis.

Not Found

The provided text mentions the "IgG Anti-Gliadin (IgG-AGA) Antibody Test Kit" and its intended use for diagnosing patients with celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis. It is a 510(k) clearance document, which means the device demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, this document does not contain details about specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, nor details about sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or clinical study designs (MRMC, standalone) based solely on the provided text. This information would typically be found in the 510(k) summary or the full submission, which is not included here.

The document primarily focuses on the FDA's decision regarding substantial equivalence for marketing purposes.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device