Search Results

The IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay is an in vitro diagnostic assay that uses real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification for the qualitative detection of nucleic acids encoding the toxin A gene (tcdA) and toxin B gene (tcdB ) sequences of toxigenic strains of Clostridium difficile in human liquid or soft stool specimens collected from patients suspected of having symptoms of Clostridium difficile infection.

The assay is intended to be performed on the Abbott m2000 System (which comprises the Abbott m2000sp and m2000rt instruments) and is indicated for use as an aid in the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile infection. The test is intended to be used directly on liquid or soft stool specimens (unpreserved stool, or stool preserved in Cary Blair transport medium). Negative results do not preclude toxigenic C. difficile infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. The IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay is intended for professional use. The device is not intended for point-of-care use.

The IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay uses PCR to generate amplified product from the tcdA and tcdB/tcdBv genes in toxigenic C. difficile DNA in clinical specimens. The presence of a toxigenic C. difficile target sequence is indicated by the fluorescent signal generated through the use of fluorescently labeled oligonucleotide probes on the Abbott m2000rt instrument. The probes do not generate a signal unless they are specifically bound to the amplified product. The amplification cycle at which fluorescent signal is detected by the Abbott m2000rt is inversely proportional to the toxigenic C. difficile DNA target concentration present in the original specimen. A bacterial species unrelated to toxigenic C. difficile is introduced into each specimen during sample preparation to serve as a process control. The process control bacteria are lysed simultaneously with toxigenic C. difficile in the specimen, and amplified in the same reaction as the C. difficile targets using PCR, and serve to demonstrate that the entire assay process has proceeded correctly for each specimen.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay, based on the provided 510(k) summary:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in a defined section. However, based on the "Clinical Performance Characteristics" section, we can infer the acceptance criteria are related to the clinical agreement (Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value) when compared to the Bartels® Cytotoxicity Assay for Clostridium difficile Toxin.

Here's a summary of the reported device performance:

Note: For analytical performance metrics like "Precision/Reproducibility" and "Analytical Sensitivity (LoD)", the tables present the results, but specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum % agreement for reproducibility or maximum CFU/mL for LoD) are not explicitly outlined as "acceptance criteria." However, the data presented implies that these results were deemed acceptable to demonstrate adequate analytical performance. For example, for "Precision/Reproducibility", achieving high percentage agreement, especially for positive and low positive samples, suggests successful criteria were met.

Study Details

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

   • Total Test Set Sample Size: 1,565 specimens.
     • 1,186 unpreserved stool specimens
     • 379 Cary Blair preserved stool specimens
   • Data Provenance: The study was conducted at "seven (7) geographically diverse locations within the United States from 2011 to 2013." This indicates prospective data collection for a clinical trial.

2. 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):

   • The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth. The ground truth was established by a reference assay.

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

   • The document implies a form of discrepancy analysis rather than adjudication by multiple human readers for initial ground truth establishment. For discrepant results between the IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay and the Bartels® Cytotoxicity Assay, "sequencing" was used to resolve some of these discrepancies (e.g., for unpreserved stool: 16 samples were sequenced, 13 resolved as negative, 3 remained discrepant; 53 samples were sequenced, 40 resolved as positive, 9 remained discrepant, 4 indeterminate). This suggests a molecular method was used for further investigation of conflicting results, rather than expert consensus on the initial test.

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 performed. This device is an in vitro diagnostic assay for molecular detection, not an imaging or interpretive device that would typically involve human readers and AI assistance.

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

   • Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "Clinical Performance Characteristics" section reports the performance of the IMDx C. difficile for Abbott m2000 assay (the algorithm/device) directly against the reference method. There is no mention of human interpretation influencing the assay's output.

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

   • The primary ground truth was established by comparison to the Bartels® Cytotoxicity Assay for Clostridium difficile Toxin. For discrepant results, sequencing was used for further resolution, serving as a secondary, more definitive ground truth for those specific cases.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly state a sample size for a training set. This is a molecular diagnostic assay, and while it uses PCR amplification, the summary focuses on analytical validation and clinical validation against a reference method, rather than a machine learning model that would typically have distinct training and test sets in the same way. The analytical studies (e.g., LoD, reactivity, cross-reactivity) might be seen as foundational "training" for the assay's design, but not in the sense of a machine learning training set with labeled data.

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

   • As mentioned above, a "training set" in the context of machine learning is not described. For the development and analytical validation of the assay, ground truth would have been established through controlled laboratory experiments using well-characterized C. difficile strains and other microorganisms, as described in the Analytical Reactivity and Cross-Reactivity sections. The document indicates these strains were identified and confirmed (e.g., ATCC strains), which serves as their established "ground truth" for analytical purposes.

Ask a specific question about this device