Search Results

lndications for Use :The Diamedix Is-dsDNA an Enzyme Immunoassay (ElA) for the detection and quantitative determination of IgG antibodies in human serum to DNA antigen as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus in patients with clinical signs of the disease. These reagents can be used either manually or in conjunction with the MAGO® Automated EIA Processor.

The Is-dsDNA Test Kit System is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection and quantitation of IgG to DNA in human serum

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Diamedix Is-dsDNA Test System:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined quantitative "acceptance criteria" for the study beyond implicitly demonstrating performance relative to a comparative method and typical characteristics for diagnostic assays (linearity, precision, cross-reactivity). The summary focuses on presenting the observed performance rather than comparing it against specific pre-set numerical targets for approval.

However, based on the provided performance characteristics, we can infer some desired outcomes that would constitute "meeting acceptance criteria" in a general sense for a diagnostic device: good sensitivity and specificity, linearity, precision, and lack of significant cross-reactivity.

Here's a table summarizing the reported device performance:

Study Details

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

   • Comparison Testing:
     • Normal Blood Donors: 200 sera
     • SLE Patients: 50 sera
     • Provenance: "Normal donor sera collected in South Florida." The provenance of the SLE patient sera is not explicitly stated, but it's likely from the same geographical region or collected similarly. The study is retrospective as it uses collected sera.
   • Precision Testing: Six different sera (positive and negative) and kit calibrator/controls.
   • Cross-reactivity Testing:
     • 11 samples containing other autoantibodies (SSA, SSB, Sm/RNP, Jo-1, Scl-70) with no dsDNA antibodies.
     • 49 samples containing varying levels of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA).

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 or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set. For the comparison study, the "ground truth" for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) status was based on clinical diagnosis (patients identified as "SLE patients") and confirmed by a "comparative method" (another commercially available anti-dsDNA test kit). For cases where the Diamedix Is-dsDNA and the comparative method disagreed, a "referee method" was used, but details of this method or the experts involved are not provided.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:
   For the comparison testing, if the Is-dsDNA test and the comparative method disagreed, a "referee method" was used. The specific details of this referee method or how disagreements were resolved if the referee method itself was equivocal are not provided. The phrase "two were positive and one was negative" (for manual testing disagreements) and "one was negative and one was positive" (for MAGO testing disagreements) implies a form of adjudication, but not a specific 2+1 or 3+1 structure. Equivocal/borderline results from the initial testing were excluded from the sensitivity, specificity, and agreement calculations: 12 for manual and 16 for MAGO.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) test kit (ELISA), not an AI-powered image analysis or interpretation tool that would involve human "readers" in the context of MRMC studies. The "MAGO Automated Processor" mentioned is an automation platform for running the ELISA, not an AI for interpretation.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Yes, in essence. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, linearity, precision, cross-reactivity) are reported for the device itself, both when operated manually and when operated using the "MAGO Automated Processor." These reflect the standalone performance of the test kit in detecting dsDNA antibodies in serum samples. There isn't an "algorithm" in the typical AI sense, but rather the performance of the chemical assay.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Clinical Diagnosis: For the main comparison study, patients were categorized as "normal blood donors" or "SLE patients," implying clinical diagnosis was the primary ground truth for disease status.
   • Comparative Method/Referee Method: The actual "truth" of dsDNA antibody presence was established by comparison to another commercially available anti-dsDNA test kit (the "comparative method") and, in cases of disagreement, a "referee method." The specific nature of this referee method is not detailed, but it would presumably be a highly reliable, perhaps more invasive or gold-standard, diagnostic approach for dsDNA antibodies.
   • Known Autoantibody Status: For cross-reactivity, samples with known presence (or absence) of other autoantibodies (e.g., SSA, SSB) and ssDNA were used, indicating that this aspect of ground truth was derived from other established diagnostic tests.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   The document does not provide information about a specific "training set" for the device in the context of machine learning or AI. This is an ELISA test kit, and its development would typically involve optimization and validation iterations rather than distinct training and test sets as understood in AI/ML. The "inhouse reference standard" mentioned in linearity testing suggests internal calibration development, but no specific training set size is given.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   As there's no explicitly defined "training set" in the AI/ML sense, this question is not fully applicable. The development of an ELISA kit like this typically involves establishing reference standards (like the "Wo/80 WHO Standard" mentioned) and optimizing the assay components and parameters. The ground truth for such development would be based on these established international standards and internal characterization using known positive and negative samples, but the details of how those internal standards were established are not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device