Search Results

For the qualitative presumptive detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. This ELISA should only be used for patients with signs and symptoms that are consistent with Lyme disease. Equivocal or positive results must be supplemented by testing with a standardized Western blot procedure. Positive supplemental results are supportive evidence of exposure to B. burgdorferi and can be used to support a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease. The test can be performed either manually or in conjunction with the MAGO TM PLUS Automated EIA Processor.

The Is-anti-Borrelia burgdorferi IgM Test Kit can be used during the acute phase (0-4 weeks of symptoms onset) of B. burgdorferi infection. After this early period, infected patients are usually found to develop IgG antibodies. A positive IgM test alone is not recommended for use in determining active disease in persons with illness of longer than one month.

The & Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA Kit is an enzyme-finked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of IgM to Borrelia burgdorferi antigen in human serum.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Borrelia burgdorferi IgM ELISA Kit, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative or numerical format (e.g., "Sensitivity must be >X%"). Instead, it presents performance data for comparison against other methods or expected clinical behavior. For example, it provides agreement percentages with characterized serum panels and precision values.

Therefore, the table below will summarize the provided performance characteristics rather than predefined acceptance criteria. The implied acceptance is that these performance characteristics are adequate for the intended use and comparable to similar devices (as suggested by the substantial equivalence to "Zeus Lyme Elisa").

Study Information

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity (CDC Panel):
     • Test set size: 47 sera (42 Lyme disease, 5 normal).
     • Data provenance: Characterized sera obtained from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). This suggests the data may be retrospective, well-characterized samples collected for reference.
   • Clinical Sensitivity (Wisconsin Panel):
     • Test set size: 72 sera with a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease.
     • Data provenance: Characterized sera obtained from a clinical lab in Wisconsin. Likely retrospective.
   • Prospective Sample Study:
     • Test set size: 173 prospective sera.
     • Data provenance: Sera from patients of various ages and gender from an endemic area, submitted to a clinical laboratory for B. burgdorferi antibody testing. This indicates prospective collection.
   • Precision Studies (Manual and MAGO Plus):
     • 6 sera (4 positive, 2 negative) tested 10 times each in 3 different runs at 3 different sites (for manual precision).
     • 6 sera tested 10 times each in 3 different runs (for MAGO Plus precision).
     • Data provenance: Not explicitly stated, but likely laboratory-prepared or reference sera.
   • Specificity with Potentially Cross-Reactive Sera:
     • N varies for each condition, totaling around 71 sera.
     • Data provenance: Sera with specific laboratory results that may cross-react or interfere.
   • Correlation of Manual and MAGO Plus Results:
     • Test set size: 294 sera.
     • Data provenance: Not explicitly detailed, but likely a mix of clinical samples.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth.
   • For the CDC panel, it states "characterized sera obtained from the CDC," implying a robust characterization process, but details on experts are absent.
   • For the Wisconsin panel, it mentions "characterized sera obtained from a clinical lab" with a "clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease," again, without specific expert details.
   • For the prospective study, "Western blot method" was used as a supplemental second-step, which is a standardized diagnostic procedure, but expert interpretation of these results beyond the standard protocol is not described.

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

   • The document does not describe an adjudication method for establishing the primary ground truth of the test sets. Ground truth appears to be based on pre-characterized panels (CDC, Wisconsin) or a combination of clinical context and Western Blot results (prospective study).

4. 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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done, as this is a serological assay (ELISA) and not an AI-assisted diagnostic device requiring human reader interpretation in the context described by MRMC.

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

   • Yes, the performance characteristics (clinical sensitivity/specificity, precision, cross-reactivity) are all standalone performance metrics of the ELISA kit itself. The "MAGO PLUS Automated EIA Processor" represents an automated method, and its correlation and precision studies are also standalone evaluations of the device's performance when automated.

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

   • CDC Panel: "Clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease" for positives, and "normal sera" for negatives. This suggests a combination of clinical findings, potentially confirmed by other reference tests at the CDC, forming a characterized reference standard.
   • Wisconsin Panel: "Clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease." This is primarily a clinical diagnosis standard.
   • Prospective Study: A two-step diagnostic algorithm where equivocal or positive ELISA results were supplemented by a standardized Western blot method. "Positive supplemental results are supportive evidence of exposure to B. burgdorferi and can be used to support a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease." This forms a hybrid ground truth involving the primary test, a confirmatory test, and clinical context.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not describe a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This is a traditional diagnostic kit, and the performance studies evaluate the kit directly using characterized and prospective samples. There is no mention of an algorithm being "trained."

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • As there is no mention of a training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device