Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K964695
    Date Cleared
    1997-04-29

    (158 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    866.5040
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    IMMAGE IMMUNOCHEMISTRY SYSTEM ALBUMIN (ALB) REAGENT

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The IMMAGE™ Immunochemistry System Albumin (ALB) reagent, in conjunction with Beckman Calibrator 3, is intended for use in the quantitative determination of human albumin concentrations in human serum and CSF samples by rate nephelometry. This assay is designed for use with the Beckman IMMAGE Immunochemistry System.

    Device Description

    The IMMAGE Immunochemistry System Albumin (ALB) Reagent, in conjunction with Beckman Calibrator 3, is intended for use in the quantitative determination of human albumin concentrations in human serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. The reagent kit contains one cartridge of reagent, evaporation caps and a lot specific bar code card. Calibrators and control materials are purchased separately.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Beckman Instruments IMMAGE™ Immunochemistry System Albumin (ALB) Reagent, structured according to your request:

    Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study

    The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device. In this context, "acceptance criteria" are not explicitly stated as quantitative thresholds for this specific device's performance. Instead, the primary goal of this study is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met if the performance characteristics (method comparison, stability, and imprecision) are comparable to, or within acceptable limits relative to, the legally marketed predicate device.

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Since explicit acceptance criteria are not provided in terms of specific numeric thresholds for parameters like slope, intercept, r-value, or %CV, the table below will present the reported device performance and infer the implicit acceptance being "comparable to the predicate device."

    Performance CharacteristicImplicit Acceptance Criteria (Comparative to Predicate)Reported Device Performance (IMMAGE ALB Reagent)
    Method Comparison (vs. Beckman Albumin Reagent (ALB) on ARRAY® Systems)
    Serum Samples
    SlopeClose to 1.0001.020
    InterceptClose to 0.0010.3
    Correlation Coefficient (r)Close to 1.0000.997
    CSF Samples
    SlopeClose to 1.0000.990
    InterceptClose to 0.000.692
    Correlation Coefficient (r)Close to 1.0000.994
    Stability Study
    Shelf-life24 months24 months
    Open Container Stability14 days14 days
    Calibration Stability14 days14 days
    Precision Study (Serum)
    %CV (Within Run, Level 1)Low %CV1.8%
    %CV (Within Run, Level 2)Low %CV1.6%
    %CV (Within Run, Level 3)Low %CV2.3%
    %CV (Total Precision, Level 1)Low %CV2.4%
    %CV (Total Precision, Level 2)Low %CV1.9%
    %CV (Total Precision, Level 3)Low %CV2.4%
    Precision Study (CSF)
    %CV (Within Run, Level 1)Low %CV4.4%
    %CV (Within Run, Level 2)Low %CV4.2%
    %CV (Within Run, Level 3)Low %CV3.4%
    %CV (Total Precision, Level 1)Low %CV6.9%
    %CV (Total Precision, Level 2)Low %CV4.6%
    %CV (Total Precision, Level 3)Low %CV4.2%

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

    • Method Comparison Study:
      • Serum: n = 164 samples
      • CSF: n = 101 samples
    • Precision Study (Serum):
      • 80 replicates for each of 3 levels for "Within Run Precision" and "Total Precision" (Total individual measurements = 80 x 3 x 2 = 480).
    • Precision Study (CSF):
      • 30 replicates for each of 3 levels for "Within Run Precision" and "Total Precision" (Total individual measurements = 30 x 3 x 2 = 180).
    • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. It also does not explicitly state whether the data was retrospective or prospective, but performance studies for 510(k) submissions are typically prospective studies conducted specifically for regulatory submission.

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

    This type of device (an immunoassay reagent) determines a quantitative value for a specific analyte. "Ground truth" is established by the reference method or comparative method itself, not typically by expert review in the way it would be for imaging or diagnostic interpretation.

    • The ground truth for the method comparison study was established by another assay: Beckman Albumin Reagent (ALB) on the ARRAY® Systems (the predicate device).
    • There were no "experts" in the sense of human adjudicators for establishing the ground truth; it was a direct comparison to an established laboratory method.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. As noted above, the ground truth is established by a quantitative measurement from a comparative method, not by human adjudication of qualitative findings.

    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 a quantitative diagnostic reagent, not an AI-powered image analysis or diagnostic interpretation device that assists human readers.

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

    This device (reagent for an immunochemistry system) operates as a standalone quantitative measurement system. Its performance data (method comparison, stability, precision) reflect its intrinsic capabilities without human interpretation influencing the final analyte concentration reported.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    The ground truth used for performance evaluation was:

    • Comparative Quantitative Measurement: For the method comparison study, the results from the Beckman Albumin Reagent (ALB) on the ARRAY® Systems served as the comparative ground truth.
    • Defined Standards/Reference Materials: For stability and precision studies, control materials with known or expected values were used, enabling the assessment of accuracy and reproducibility.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    The document does not specify a "training set" in the context of machine learning. This device is an immunoassay reagent, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training phase.

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

    Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the machine learning sense for this device. The development of such a reagent involves chemical formulation and optimization, followed by validation against known standards and comparative methods.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1