Search Results

The inorganic phosphorus reagents: product No. 112-01 and 112-02 are intended for Invitro The morganic phosphords reagence from the determination of inorganic phosphate in serum, or plasma.

Not Found

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and study details for the Inorganic Phosphorus (IP) device:

The provided documents are a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA and the "Indications for Use" statement for the device. These documents do not contain the specific details required to answer all your questions about acceptance criteria, detailed study design, and performance metrics.

The 510(k) process primarily focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring a detailed de novo clinical trial with explicit acceptance criteria and performance data as would be found in a Premarket Approval (PMA) application or a more extensive clinical study report for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD).

Therefore, many of your questions cannot be answered directly from the provided text. I will answer what is available and indicate where the information is missing.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Inorganic Phosphorus (IP) Device (K991867)

Based on the provided documents, comprehensive details regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them are not fully available. The FDA clearance letter indicates a finding of "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, which is the primary regulatory hurdle for a 510(k) submission. This suggests that the device's performance was compared to a known, legally marketed device, and found to be sufficiently similar.

The "Indications for Use" states: "The inorganic phosphorus reagents: product No. 112-01 and 112-02 are intended for Invitro quantitative determination of inorganic phosphate in serum, or plasma."

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based on the limited information:

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

   Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
   Not explicitly stated in the document. The primary "acceptance criterion" for 510(k) clearance is demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device. This would typically involve showing comparable accuracy, precision, and linearity to the predicate.	Not explicitly stated in the document. Performance data (e.g., accuracy, precision studies) would have been submitted to the FDA to support substantial equivalence, but are not detailed in these public-facing letters.

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

   • Sample Size: Not specified in the provided documents.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified in the provided documents.

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)

   • Not applicable / Not specified. For in vitro diagnostic assays like inorganic phosphorus, "ground truth" is typically established by comparing results to a reference method, a predicate device, or using certified reference materials, rather than expert consensus on images or interpretations. The concept of "experts establishing ground truth" in the way described for imaging studies is not directly relevant here.

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

   • Not applicable / Not specified. Adjudication methods are typically used in studies involving subjective interpretations (e.g., medical imaging reads). For a quantitative IVD, direct comparison to a reference standard or predicate device is more common.

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

   • No. This is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device for measuring a chemical analyte, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging tool. Therefore, MRMC studies and "human readers improve with AI" questions are not relevant to this device.

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

   • Yes, in essence. An IVD device performs autonomously in a lab setting to generate a result. The "performance" assessed would be the analytical performance of the assay itself (e.g., accuracy, precision, linearity, interference). There isn't an "algorithm" in the typical sense of AI, but rather a chemical reaction and measurement process.

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

   • Likely a combination of:
     • Reference Methods: Comparison against established, highly accurate laboratory methods for inorganic phosphorus.
     • Predicate Device Comparison: Direct comparison of results from the subject device to results from the legally marketed predicate device using patient samples.
     • Certified Reference Materials: Using materials with known, traceable concentrations of inorganic phosphate to verify accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not specified. This pertains to the analytical performance evaluation rather than a machine learning "training set". The development and validation of the chemical reagents and measurement system would involve various sample types and numbers, but it's not described as a "training set" in the context of typical AI/ML studies.

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

   • Not applicable / Not specified in this context. As noted, this is not an AI/ML device with a "training set" in the modern sense. The "ground truth" for developing and validating the chemical assay would rely on established analytical chemistry principles, reference methods, and quality control materials.

Ask a specific question about this device