Search Results

The & MPO IgG kit is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) For the qualitative detection and semi-quantitation of antibodies against the Myeloperoxidase antigen in serum as an aid in the diagnosis of Microscopic polyangiitis. The test can be performed either manually or in conjunction with the Mago Plus automated EIA processor.

The & MPO IgG ELISA Kit is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of IgG to Myeloperoxidase in human serum.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the anti-MPO IgG ELISA Kit, focusing on acceptance criteria and study details:

Device: anti-MPO IgG ELISA Kit

Intended Use: Qualitative detection and semi-quantitation of antibodies against Myeloperoxidase antigen in serum as an aid in the diagnosis of Microscopic polyangiitis. Can be performed manually or with the Mago Plus automated EIA processor.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria for the relative sensitivity, specificity, or clinical performance. Instead, it reports the calculated performance characteristics. However, based on the presentation and the context of a 510(k) submission, the reported values serve as the de facto "met" criteria for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. For precision, the document reports the CV% values. For the correlation study, a Pearson coefficient of 0.983 is reported, which is indicative of a strong correlation.

Note on Precision CV%: The CV% for negative samples (E and F) is very high (e.g., 194.37%, 161.02%, 100.23%). This is common for values close to zero, where small absolute variations lead to large percentage changes. The CV% for positive samples is much lower and generally acceptable (e.g., 4.49-19.90%).

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

• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study:
  • Sample Size: 264 frozen retrospective sera from patients.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but common for such studies in 510(k) submissions to be from a single or few clinical sites within the country of the applicant (USA, based on address). The term "retrospective sera" indicates samples collected in the past.
• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study:
  • Sample Size: 256 frozen retrospective, clinically characterized sera.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but "retrospective, clinically characterized" implies samples from a clinical setting.
• Correlation of Manual and MAGO Plus Results:
  • Sample Size: 100 serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but likely from the same clinical context as the other studies.

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

• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study: The ground truth was established by another "Other ELISA" kit. There is no mention of human experts defining the ground truth for this comparison.
• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study: The samples were "clinically characterized." This implies that patient diagnoses (Normals, Wegener's Granulomatosis, Microscopic Polyangiitis) were established through standard clinical evaluation, which would involve medical professionals (e.g., physicians, specialists). However, the number and qualifications of these experts are not mentioned in the document.
• Training Set Ground Truth: No specific "training set" or "ground truth for training set" details are provided, as this is a traditional ELISA kit, not an AI/machine learning device. The design and validation of ELISAs rely on established biochemical principles and purified antigens/antibodies, rather than iterative machine learning training.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study: The ground truth was based on the results of an "Other ELISA" kit. There was no human adjudication process described. "Equivocal results were excluded from calculations."
• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study: The samples were "clinically characterized." This implies a clinical diagnosis process, which often involves multiple clinicians or a consensus, but no specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is detailed in the document. "Equivocal results were excluded from calculations."

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and the effect size

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, and such studies are typically performed for imaging devices or AI-assisted diagnostic tools where human readers interpret results. The "MAGO Plus" is an automated processor, not a human reader. The correlation study between manual and MAGO Plus results assesses the equivalence of the method of processing, not the improvement of human readers.

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

Yes, the device operates as a standalone assay for detecting MPO IgG antibodies. The "algorithm" in this context refers to the chemical reactions and spectrophotometric measurement, not a computational algorithm. The performance of the test, both manually and with the MAGO Plus automated EIA processor, is the standalone performance of the assay to detect the target analyte.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study:
  • Ground Truth: Results from a "similar assay" (other ELISA).
• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study:
  • Ground Truth: "Clinically characterized" patient diagnoses (e.g., Normals, Wegener's Granulomatosis, Microscopic Polyangiitis). This is effectively a form of clinical diagnosis/outcomes data as established by medical professionals.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of a "training set" as understood in artificial intelligence and machine learning is not applicable to this traditional immunoassay device. ELISA kits are developed based on established biochemical principles (antigen-antibody binding) and calibrated using standards and controls, not trained on vast datasets of patient samples in the same way an AI model would be. Therefore, there is no discrete "training set" in the context of this device.

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

As noted above, there is no "training set" in the context of AI/ML for this device. The development and calibration of the ELISA kit would involve a different process:

• Antigen and Antibody Validation: Ensuring the MPO antigen used is pure and reactive, and the anti-human IgG conjugate is specific.
• Assay Optimization: Determining optimal reagent concentrations, incubation times, wash steps, and developing cut-offs or calibration curves using known positive and negative control materials. These controls and calibrators serve a role analogous to "ground truth" for assay performance characterization, but it's fundamentally different from training an ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device