Search Results

The ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA is a rapid in vitro qualitative procedure for the detection of Helicobacter pylori antigens in human stool. The stool antigen detection is intended to aid in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection and to demonstrate loss of H. pylori stool antigen following treatment. Conventional medical practice recommends that testing by any method to confirm loss of antigen be done at least four weeks following completion of therapy.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter for the ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA device. It primarily focuses on the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence and regulatory compliance information, rather than a detailed study report with acceptance criteria and performance data.

Therefore, I cannot provide a complete answer to your request based solely on the provided text. The document does not contain the specific details of a study, acceptance criteria, or performance metrics. It's a regulatory approval letter.

However, I can extract information related to the device and the type of data that would be relevant if a full study report were available.

Based on the provided document, here's what I can infer and what is missing:

The device, ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA, is a rapid in vitro qualitative procedure for the detection of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) antigens in human stool. It is intended to aid in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection and to demonstrate loss of H. pylori stool antigen following treatment.

To address your request, if a full study report were available, it would typically include the following information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Missing from the document. A study report would typically define performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) or overall agreement, along with the pre-defined target values (acceptance criteria).

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Missing from the document. A study report would specify the number of patient samples included in the test set, whether the samples were collected prospectively or retrospectively, and details about the patient population and geographical origin.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Missing from the document. For a diagnostic test like this, the "ground truth" would likely be established using a comparator method (e.g., culture, biopsy with histological examination, UBT, or another validated molecular test). The experts involved would typically be clinical microbiologists, gastroenterologists, or pathologists. The number and qualifications would depend on the complexity of the ground truth method.

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

• Not applicable in the context of this device. Adjudication methods like "2+1" (where two readers agree, or a third reader resolves discrepancies) are common in imaging studies. For a qualitative diagnostic test like the ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA, adjudication typically refers to the resolution of discrepancies between the device's result and the reference standard, rather than between multiple human readers interpreting the device's output.

5. 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

• Not applicable. The ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI-based imaging interpretation system. Therefore, MRMC studies involving human readers improving with AI assistance are not relevant to this device.

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

• Could be considered "standalone" in a different sense. The ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA provides a direct qualitative result (positive/negative) based on antigen detection. Its performance is evaluated as the device itself, without a "human-in-the-loop" in the same way an AI algorithm for image analysis would be. A standalone study for this device would assess its accuracy against a known truth.

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

• Inferred based on "H. pylori antigen detection": For H. pylori detection, the gold standard (ground truth) typically used in clinical studies includes:
  • Culture: Growing the bacteria from biopsy samples.
  • Histology: Microscopic examination of gastric biopsy tissues for H. pylori.
  • Urea Breath Test (UBT) or Stool Antigen Test (SAT) using a highly sensitive and specific comparator method: These are non-invasive methods, often used as reference for other non-invasive tests.
  • Rapid Urease Test (RUT): Performed on biopsy samples.
  • Overall Clinical Diagnosis: Based on a combination of invasive and non-invasive tests.
• The specific ground truth used for ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA would be detailed in a study report.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable in the context of this device. The ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA is a biochemical/immunological test kit, not an AI or machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set." Its design and optimization would involve R&D and validation, but not in the sense of AI model training.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable. As above, training sets and their ground truth establishment are relevant for AI/ML models, not for this type of in vitro diagnostic kit.

In summary: The provided document is a regulatory communication of FDA clearance. To answer your detailed questions about acceptance criteria and study particulars, a separate clinical study report or performance evaluation data would be required.

Ask a specific question about this device