Search Results

The assay is intended for use in detecting antibodies to Sm/RNP antigen in a single human serum sample. The results of the assay are to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of autoimmune disorders.

The Is-anti-Sm/RNP Test Kit System is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection and semi-quantitation of IgG to Sm/RNP antigen in human serum.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Diamedix Is-anti-Sm/RNP Test System based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as distinct pass/fail thresholds in the document, but rather implied by the reported performance relative to a predicate device. The comparison testing data serves as the de-facto performance standard against which the device's performance is measured.

*One borderline sample excluded.
**Two samples (one equivocal, one borderline) excluded.

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

• Sample Size:
  • Comparison Testing: 150 sera (100 from normal blood donors and 50 from autoimmune patients).
  • Linearity Testing: Serial two-fold dilutions of a Calibrator.
  • Precision Testing: 6 different sera, a Calibrator, a Positive Control, and a Negative Control tested over different days.
  • Cross-reactivity: 24 sera positive for six different autoimmune specificities.
  • Expected Values: 100 normal donor sera and 50 clinically characterized sera (total 150).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated as country of origin. The test was conducted by Diamedix Corporation in Miami, FL, implying the studies were conducted locally. The data is retrospective as it involves testing existing serum samples.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.
• How Ground Truth was Established: For the comparison testing, the "ground truth" was established by the result of a "commercially available anti-Sm/RNP ELISA test kit" (the predicate device) and, in some cases of discordance, a "third method." For cross-reactivity, serum samples were "positive for the six autoimmune specificities," implying previous diagnostic confirmation, but the method or expertise for this confirmation is not detailed. For "clinically characterized sera" it broadly refers to diagnoses made by healthcare professionals, but specific details are absent.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not explicitly stated for establishing the initial "ground truth." However, for discordant results between the Diamedix device and the comparative method, a "third method" was used to resolve the discrepancy for 11 samples. This implies a form of adjudication for discordant results rather than a primary ground truth establishment method.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study describes a diagnostic test kit's performance, not the comparative effectiveness of human readers with and without AI assistance. The "Manual" and "MAGO" refer to manual vs. automated processing of the test kit itself, not human interpretation.

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

• Yes, a standalone performance was done for both the "Manual" and "MAGO" (automated) versions of the device. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) test, where the output (EU/ml values and interpretation of positive/negative) is generated by the assay itself, either through manual steps or with the aid of the MAGO instrument. While a human might interpret the final results in a clinical context, the performance metrics reported here (sensitivity, specificity, precision, linearity) relate to the device's ability to accurately measure the analyte, essentially a standalone assessment of the assay.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Predicate Device Comparison and Clinical Characterization: The primary ground truth for sensitivity and specificity was the results from a "commercially available anti-Sm/RNP ELISA test kit" (predicate device) and in some discrepant cases, a "third method." For the "autoimmune patients," their status was based on clinical characterization, implying a combination of clinical diagnoses and potentially other laboratory tests, but not explicitly stated as pathology or direct outcomes data for this specific study. For cross-reactivity, it used sera known to be positive for other autoimmune specificities.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable / Not Mentioned. This document describes a diagnostic assay (ELISA kit), not a machine learning or AI algorithm in the context of typical training sets. There is no mention of a "training set" in the context of an algorithm or statistical model being developed. The device's parameters are likely established through a biochemical development process and validated, rather than "trained" in the AI sense.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Mentioned. As there's no "training set" in the AI sense for this type of device, this question is not relevant to the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device