Search Results

The Interlab Alkaline Hemoglobin Electrophoresis test system is intended for the separation of normal hemoglobins (A1, A2 and F) as well as certain abnormal or variant hemoglobins (S or D and C or E) using cellulose acetate supported on Mylar®. The test is a screening method for in vitro diagnostic use on the Microtech 672 PC and the Microtech 648 ISO fully automated analyzers. To distinguish hemoglobins S from D or C from E an alternate confirmatory test such as acid hemoglobin electrophoresis is necessary.

The InterLab Hemoglobin devices test kits for the electrophoretic separation of hemoglobin in whole blood and are intended for In-Vitro diagnostic use only. The InterLab Alkaline Hemoglobin Electrophoresis Test Devices provide semi-quantitative identification of hemoglobin bands visualized by staining of the fractions. The principle of hemoglobin electrophoresis is based upon the visualization of specific hemoglobin bands following separation by electrophoresis. Dilutions of a patient's specimen are placed on separate tracks (fingers) on a cellulose acetate slide six fingers shaped, and the major hemoglobin groups are separated by electrophoresis. The migration rate depends on the temperature, pH, ionic force of the solution and proportions of the reactants. After electrophoresis, the slide is processed to remove excess soluble materials through a washing step. Fractionated hemoglobins are stained. The excess of stain is removed by a destaining step.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, outlining the acceptance criteria and the study that demonstrates the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the comparison to a commercially available reference method and the statistical results (correlation coefficients, precision metrics) achieved.

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

• Sample Size: 93 samples (from both normal and suspected pathological patients).
• Data Provenance: Retrospective, as samples were "submitted for routine testing to the hospital laboratory." The country of origin is not explicitly stated.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their qualifications. It mentions that comparative studies were done against "the laboratory's routine commercially available agarose gel test system following the manufacturers' procedure." This implies that the results from the reference method, presumably interpreted by qualified laboratory personnel, served as the ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1). The "ground truth" seems to be established by the results of the reference agarose gel test, which implies a single reference result per sample rather than a consensus among multiple readers for the test set itself.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not indicated. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic test system for semi-quantitative identification of hemoglobin bands, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that aids human readers. The comparison is between two laboratory testing methods.

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

The device is described as an "electrophoretic hemoglobin analysis system" that performs semi-quantitative identification of bands after processing. While it runs on "fully automated analyzers" (Microtech 672 PC and Microtech 648 ISO), the identification of bands and their comparison to a reference method (agarose gel test) implies that the system outputs results, and these results (band patterns) are then visually inspected and compared. The study data focuses on the performance of the test system itself, suggesting standalone performance in generating the patterns. However, the qualitative assessment ("visually inspected") suggests human interpretation is still involved in confirming results against the reference.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the method comparison and agreement studies was established by a reference method, specifically "the laboratory's routine commercially available agarose gel test system."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention the use of a separate training set. The study described uses 93 samples for performance evaluation, compared against a reference method. This appears to be a validation/verification study, not a development study involving a distinct training phase for an algorithm.

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

As no training set is mentioned for an algorithm, this question is not applicable to the provided information.

Ask a specific question about this device