Search Results

MRL Diagnostics' Lyme Disease Borrelia burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM test allows the qualitative detection of IgM class antibody in human serum to individual proteins of the genogroup 1 (B. burgdorferi sensu stricto) of B. burgdorferi sensu lato. The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Western Blot assay is intended to provide supportive evidence of infection with B. burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, using serum samples which have been found positive or equivocal by another B. burgdorferi detection methodology (e.g. IFA or ELISA).

The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM can be used alone during the acute phase (0-4 weeks of symptoms onset) of B. burgdorferi infection. After the acute phase, infected patients are usually found to be Western Blot positive for IgG. For persons beyond the acute phase, a positive IgM test alone is not recommended for determining active disease in patients. Therefore, both IgG and IgM Western Blots should be used after the acute phase.

MRL Diagnostics separates B. burgdorferi proteins by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and electrophoretically transfers the fractionated proteins from the gel to a nitrocellulose membrane. The nitrocellulose membrane is dried and cut into strips. The antigen strips are numbered and packaged.

The MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM test is a two stage procedure. In the first stage, the patient sera is diluted and incubated with individual antigen strips. If antibodies to B. burgdorferi are present in the sera, they will bind to the Borrelia antigens immobilized on the nitrocellulose membranes. In the second stage, visualization of the bound antibodies is accomplished by incubating the blots with alkaline phosphatase-conjugated goat anti-human IgM, (Fc fragment specific) followed by the addition of substrate (BCIP/NBT) which forms a colored precipitate at each site (antigen band) where the anti-human conjugate has bound. The resulting pattern of band reactivity is then interpreted.

The provided text describes the MRL Diagnostics Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM device and the studies conducted to establish its safety and effectiveness.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details:

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

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "The device must achieve a sensitivity of X%"). Instead, it presents the observed performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility) from the studies.

• 6 months: 32% (23/71) |
  | Specificity | Overall Normal Population Positivity (IgM): 2% (5/325)
  Cross-reactivity (IgM): Varied by condition, e.g., Syphilis 1% (1/74), Periodontal 10% (2/20), E. chaffeensis 63% (5/8). |
  | Reproducibility| Intra-laboratory: 100% interpretation, 90-100% criteria band readings.
  Inter-lot: 100% interpretation, 90-100% criteria band readings.
  Inter-reader: 96% interpretation, 94-96% criteria band readings.
  Inter-site: 95% interpretation, 94-98% criteria band readings. |

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

• Sensitivity Test Set:

  • Total: 176 well-characterized Lyme disease positive patient sera.
  • Provenance: Retrospective serum samples.
    • Investigational Sites 1 and 2 used samples from their own well-characterized serum banks.
    • Investigational Site 3 used a retrospective, masked, characterized serum panel supplied by the CDC.
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but the involvement of the CDC in the US suggests data largely from the US.

• Specificity Test Set:

  • Total: 606 sera.
    • 325 serum samples from persons with no known history of Lyme disease (Normals, from endemic and non-endemic areas).
    • 284 disease state serum samples from potentially cross-reactive diseases.
  • Provenance: Retrospective.
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but implies similar geographical sources as the sensitivity study.

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)

The document mentions "well-characterized Lyme disease positive patient sera... from patients with EM, a late stage symptom per the CDC case definition and B. burgdorferi seropositive, or B. burgdorferi culture positive." For specificity, it uses "persons with no known history of Lyme disease" and "disease state serum samples from potentially cross-reactive diseases."

No direct mention is made of a specific number of experts or their qualifications establishing the ground truth for the test set in a consensus-based reading scenario. The ground truth appears to be based on:

• Clinical diagnosis (EM, late stage symptom per CDC case definition).
• Laboratory confirmation (B. burgdorferi seropositive or B. burgdorferi culture positive).
• Known patient history for normal and cross-reactive cohorts.

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

The document does not describe an adjudication method for establishing the ground truth of the test set samples. The ground truth seems to be established based on clinical and laboratory criteria as described above, rather than expert interpretation of the western blot results themselves for the purpose of ground truth.

For the inter-reader reproducibility study, it mentions "read by two readers at each site," but this is to assess reader variability, not to establish a adjudicated ground truth for individual cases.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a diagnostic test (Western Blot IgM) interpreted by human readers, but the study focuses on the standalone performance and reproducibility of the device, not on comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance. AI assistance is not mentioned.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The reported sensitivity and specificity values are for the device (MRL Diagnostics' Lyme Disease B. burgdorferi Genogroup 1 Western Blot IgM test) as interpreted by trained personnel (implied by "read by two readers at each site" in reproducibility studies, but the main sensitivity/specificity data appears to be for the device's output). The "algorithm" in this context is the Western Blot interpretation criteria used by the trained readers. There is no mention of an automated algorithm separate from human interpretation for standalone performance.

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

The ground truth for the test set was established using:

• Clinical diagnosis: Patients with Erythema Migrans (EM), a late-stage symptom per the CDC case definition.
• Laboratory confirmation: B. burgdorferi seropositive or B. burgdorferi culture positive.
• Known patient history: For normal populations (no known history or symptoms of Lyme Disease) and cross-reactivity populations (patients with potentially cross-reactive conditions or infections).

This is a combination of clinical diagnosis and laboratory results.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly describe a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithm development. The "well-characterized" samples described in the studies are for evaluating the performance of the device. Medical devices like this Western Blot typically have their "criteria bands" for positivity established through extensive biological research and clinical correlation, not through a machine learning training process with a distinct training set. The criteria bands (e.g., 23, 39, 41 kDa) are pre-defined biological markers.

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

As there is no distinct "training set" described for an algorithm, this question is not directly applicable. The "ground truth" for defining the diagnostic criteria of the Western Blot (i.e., which bands are indicative of infection) would have been established through prior fundamental research into B. burgdorferi immunology and clinical presentations of Lyme disease, correlating specific antibody band patterns with confirmed cases.

Ask a specific question about this device