Search Results

The Influenza A/B Rapid Test is a qualitative immunoassay for the rapid detection of Influenza A/B viral antigens from throat swab or nasal swab specimens. This test is intended for professional in vitro diagnostic use to aid in the diagnosis of Influenza infections, and to gather epidemiological information for detection of Influenza outbreaks. When used for diagnosis, negative assay results should be confirmed by cell culture. This assay does not detect the presence of Influenza C viral antigens.

The Influenza A/B Rapid Test consists of swabs, reaction cups, test strips, and reagent solutions. The test detects the viral nucleoprotein associated with the viral nucleic acid. The nucleoprotein is released by lysing the virus envelop with the lysis/elution solution. Since the nucleoprotein is type specific only (not subtype specific), the test uses two pairs of monoclonal antibodies - one pair is specific for Influenza A, the other is specific for Influenza B. The antibody pairs are conjugated to either biotin or digoxigenin. In the presence of the viral antigen, a sandwich complex is formed, consisting of the biotin-conjugated antibody, the nucleoprotein, and the digoxigeninconjugated antibody. When the test strip is placed in the reaction cup, the complex migrates chromatographically, solubilizing colloidal gold particles incorporated in the red pad of the strip. The colloidal gold particles bind to the digoxigenin of the complex, which is then bound by the biotin to the immobilized streptavidin on the strip (positive result line). Any excess gold particles continue to migrate to the second line (control line), which then becomes visible. This indicates the correct chromatographic migration. The test reagent formulation has been modified slightly to produce improved specificity, and allow the use of nasal swab samples.

Here's an analysis of the provided 510(k) summary regarding the Roche Diagnostics Influenza A/B Rapid Test, extracting the requested information about acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a set of predefined thresholds that the device must meet in a table. Instead, it presents performance data for the modified device and compares it to a predicate device. The implied acceptance is that the modified device's performance, particularly its improved specificity and expanded sample type, is deemed suitable and substantially equivalent to its predicate.

However, based on the performance data presented, we can infer the reported performance metrics:

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for the performance studies of either the predicate or the modified device. It only presents the sensitivity and specificity percentages. Similarly, the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) is not mentioned.

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

The document states that the performance is measured "vs. Cell Culture." This indicates that cell culture was used as the gold standard (ground truth). Therefore, there were no human experts used to establish the ground truth for this diagnostic test; instead, a laboratory method was employed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Since cell culture was the ground truth, there was no adjudication method involving human experts. The comparison was directly between the rapid test result and the cell culture result.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of Human Reader Improvement

This information is not applicable as the device is a qualitative immunoassay. It does not involve human readers interpreting images or data where their performance could be augmented by AI. The device gives a direct positive or negative result.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

This information is not applicable in the context of this device. The "algorithm" is the biochemical reaction of the immunoassay itself. The performance percentages (sensitivity and specificity) described are the standalone performance of the device, as it produces a result without human interpretation of complex outputs beyond reading a line.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used was cell culture. This is a laboratory-based method for detecting the presence of Influenza A/B viruses. The document explicitly states: "Performance vs. Cell Culture."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a "training set" or its sample size. This type of immunoassay development typically involves extensive R&D and optimization (which could be considered a form of "training"), but it's not structured in the same way as machine learning algorithms where a distinct training set is published. The performance data presented are from clinical evaluation studies.

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

As no training set is explicitly mentioned in the context of typical machine learning, this information is not provided. If an internal optimization process involved comparing prototype results to a gold standard, it would likely also use cell culture for establishing the ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device