Search Results

The iQ 200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module is an in-vitro diagnostic device used by a competent human observer to examine and count red blood cells and nucleated cells in cerebrospinal fluid and serous fluids.

Cerebrospinal fluid analysis is ordered by physicians to diagnose meningitis, intracranial hemorrhage, leukemias, malignancies and central nervous system disorders. Serous fluid analysis is ordered by physicians to diagnose infections, hemorrhages, malignancies and other disorders. Cell count determination is a part of these analyses.

The information produced by the iQ 200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module concerning the cell concentrations in CSF and serous body fluids is ordered at the discretion of the physician, and is part of a larger body of laboratory and other test results available to assist the physician in health assessments or differential diagnoses. Cell count findings are always subject to judgment and interpretation by physicians relative to the patient's overall clinical presentation and history.

Two aliquots from each body fluid specimen sample are prepared. One aliquot is diluted in normal saline to provide a concentration in the linear range of the instrument. The second aliquot is treated with a lysing reagent to allow unambiguous identification of nucleated cells by eliminating RBC confusion. Particle images are captured and saved electronically as the sample flows past a microscope objective at a high speed, electronically concentrating particles. Particle images are then ordered by size into assigned categories on a video display. A competent human observer may change machine assignments, after which particle concentrations are recomputed and reported.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the iQ® 200 Urine Analyzer Body Fluids Module, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The device's performance was compared to manual chamber counting. The acceptance criteria were not explicitly stated as distinct numerical thresholds, but rather implied by the statistical results (R2 values, slope within a CI, and non-significant intercepts) demonstrating substantial equivalence.

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

• RBC Test Set Sample Size: 304 samples
• Nucleated Cells Test Set Sample Size: 299 samples
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study is presented as a "Clinical Trial," implying prospective data collection, but it's not explicitly labeled as such or as retrospective.

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

The ground truth was established by "manual chamber counting" performed by a "competent human observer." The number of observers is not specified, nor are their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience").

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method for the test set. The comparison is between the device's performance and manual chamber counting.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study compares the device's performance to "manual chamber counting," not to human readers' performance with and without AI assistance. The device itself still involves a "competent human observer" to potentially change machine assignments, but the primary performance study focuses on the instrument's accuracy compared to a manual method.

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

The device is explicitly described as being "used by a competent human observer to examine and count red blood cells and nucleated cells" and that "A competent human observer may change machine assignments, after which particle concentrations are recomputed and reported." Therefore, the reported performance is not a standalone (algorithm only) performance, but rather a system performance including the human-in-the-loop for review and potential correction.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was expert manual chamber counting.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information about a training set or its sample size. The focus is on the performance comparison of the device against the manual method.

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

Since no training set information is provided, there is no information on how its ground truth was established.

Ask a specific question about this device