Search Results

The DPC IMMULITE 1000 is an automated immunoassay system intended to assay the same broad range of analytes in patient samples as does IMMULITE. The intent of the system is to impart the same automation to the array of immunoassays in the same hospital and commercial laboratory settings as IMMULITE. The system is intended to produce safe and effective performance when used by medical laboratory personnel as is the IMMULITE predicate system.

The DPC IMMULITE 1000 product is essentially an upgrade of the current IMMULITE system. All of the current functionality will be retained; however, the system will be enhanced with regard to the user interface, casework, and system footprint. The operating system will be changed to a Windows 2000 environment. In addition, the system will be remodeled to give the IMMULITE a more "modern" look and feel to be part of the "IMMULITE Family". Finally, the total system footprint will be decreased by such mechanisms as integrating the PC into the architecture of the system and provide a defined area for storing bulk materials (i.e., waste, water, and, probe wash).

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the IMMULITE® 1000 Automated Immunoassay Analyzer, which is essentially an upgrade of an existing system (IMMULITE). The document states that the modifications do not change the indications for use or the intended use, and the device is intended to assay the same broad range of analytes in patient samples as the predicate IMMULITE.

However, the 510(k) summary does not contain the detailed information required to answer many of the questions asked. This type of regulatory submission often focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than providing extensive de novo study details with specific acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, or comparative effectiveness studies.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, highlighting what's available and what's missing:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria for specific performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, limits of detection for various analytes) or report detailed device performance results against these criteria. It focuses on the equivalence to the predicate device.

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

The document does not specify the sample size used for any test set or provide details on the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature of the data).

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)

This information is not provided. Since this is an automated immunoassay analyzer, the "ground truth" would typically come from reference methods or established clinical diagnostics, not from expert consensus interpreting images or other qualitative data.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for qualitative assessments, often in imaging studies where multiple readers interpret cases. For an immunoassay analyzer measuring analytes, performance is usually assessed quantitatively against reference standards.

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

An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not mentioned. This type of study is relevant for AI-assisted diagnostic devices where human readers interpret data. The IMMULITE 1000 is an automated immunoassay analyzer, not a diagnostic imaging AI system that "assists" human readers.

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

The IMMULITE 1000 is inherently a "standalone" automated system in the sense that it performs the immunoassay measurements without continuous human intervention during the assay process. The results are generated by the instrument. However, the document does not detail specific "standalone performance studies" in a structured way that would be typical for a novel AI algorithm's standalone evaluation. Instead, it implies that the performance is demonstrated to be equivalent to the predicate IMMULITE system.

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

The ground truth for an immunoassay analyzer would typically be established by:

• Reference Methods: Using established, highly accurate laboratory methods for analyte measurement.
• Certified Reference Materials/Standards: Calibrating and verifying performance against materials with known analyte concentrations.
• Comparison to Predicate Device: Given that this is a 510(k) for an upgrade, the primary "ground truth" implicitly relies on the proven performance of the predicate IMMULITE system for the broad range of analytes. The document states, "The data presented in this summary of safety and effectiveness is the data that the Food and Drug Administration used in granting DPC substantial equivalence for the IMMULITE 1000 Analyzer," implying that the data primarily demonstrated equivalence.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. Immunoassay analyzers are not "trained" in the same way machine learning models are. Their "training" or calibration involves using specific calibrators and controls to establish a standard curve or reference points for measurement, which is a different concept than a "training set" for AI.

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

As mentioned above, the concept of a "training set" and its "ground truth" in the context of machine learning, is not directly applicable to this device in the way implied by the question. The "ground truth" for the calibration and verification of an immunoassay system would be established using certified calibrators and controls with known values, or by comparison to established reference methods and the predicate device. The document does not elaborate on these details.

Summary of what the document does communicate:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied): The primary acceptance criterion for this 510(k) appears to be substantial equivalence to the predicate IMMULITE system. The device needs to produce "safe and effective performance" for the "same broad range of analytes in patient samples" as the IMMULITE.
• Study Proving Acceptance Criteria: The document states that "The data presented in this summary of safety and effectiveness is the data that the Food and Drug Administration used in granting DPC substantial equivalence for the IMMULITE 1000 Analyzer." This implies that studies were conducted to demonstrate that the IMMULITE 1000 performs comparably to the original IMMULITE system across its intended applications. These studies would typically involve method comparison, precision, linearity, and interference studies, but the specific results and methodologies are not detailed in this public 510(k) summary.
• Changes to the Device: The modifications are primarily focused on the user interface, casework, system footprint, and operating system (Windows 2000 environment), not fundamental changes to the underlying immunoassay technology (14-inch polystyrene antibody coated beads, alkaline phosphatase labeled antibody/antigen, chemiluminescent detection). This reinforces the focus on demonstrating equivalence rather than proving novel performance.

Ask a specific question about this device