Search Results

For the qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative detection of IgG antibodies to rubella in human serum by indirect enzyme immunoassay to aid in the assessment of the patient's immunological response to rubella and in the determination of the immune status of individuals, including females of child-bearing age. The evaluation of acute and convalescent sera can aid in the diagnosis of current or recent infection with rubella.

The Mago 4S Automated EIA and IFA Processor is a pipetting, diluting, incubating, and color intensity analyzing system for in vitro diagnostic clinical use for the processing of FDA-cleared enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assays (EIA) through result generation. In addition, it processes immunofluorescence assay (IFA) slides for off-platform detection and result generation.

The MAGO 4S is an automated laboratory instrument designed to automate the processing of enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assays (EIA) as well as Immunofluorescence Assay (IFA) slides. The MAGO 4S is designed to minimize manual operations associated with performing routine laboratory analysis by mechanizing and computerizing the test process.

The provided document describes the MAGO 4S, an automated laboratory instrument for processing enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assays (EIA) and immunofluorescence assay (IFA) slides, specifically for the detection of IgG antibodies to rubella in human serum. The study aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of specific thresholds for precision, linearity, or agreement percentages before the study was conducted. Instead, it presents the results obtained and implies that these results are deemed acceptable for substantial equivalence. For the purpose of this table, I will infer the acceptance from the presented "Pass" results and the general expectation for such assays.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Sizes:
  • Precision/Reproducibility: 6 well-characterized samples (Diamedix QC Panels) for precision. 3 positive normal samples diluted to ~10 IU/ml for reproducibility. Run over 20 days, 2 runs per day, suggesting a significant number of replicates (e.g., if each 'Run' has multiple measurements, then (12 runs/day * 20 days * # replicates per run) for precision, and 3 samples * 20 days * 2 runs per day for reproducibility).
  • Linearity/Reportable Range: Strong positive and weak positive samples diluted seven times at evenly spaced intervals.
  • Positive and Negative Agreement with Comparator and Assessment of Equivocal Zone: Approximately 100 samples in <10 IU/ml, 50 samples in 10-20 IU/ml, and 50 samples in >20 IU/ml range. A total of 208 sera were tested. An additional ~20 patient samples were used for the equivocal zone assessment.
  • CDC Performance Panel: 100 sera provided by the CDC.
  • CDC Biological Standard: CDC Biological Standard, Low-Titer Anti Rubella Human Reference Serum, used with a dilution series.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated whether retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of performance testing for a new device, it is likely prospective, with samples collected or acquired specifically for this study. The country of origin for general samples is not mentioned, but the CDC performance panel samples are from the US.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• The document does not mention the use of external human experts to establish ground truth for the test set that directly compares the MAGO 4S to a reference.
• For the "Positive and Negative Agreement with Comparator" test, the "manual" method acts as the comparative standard. The expertise for establishing the results of the manual method would rely on the laboratory personnel performing those tests, presumably qualified medical technologists or similar professionals.
• For the CDC Performance Panel, the "CDC Target" is used as the ground truth. This implicitly relies on the expertise and established reference methods of the CDC.

4. Adjudication Method

• The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) involving multiple human readers/reviewers for the test set.
• For the "Positive and Negative Agreement with Comparator," it seems a single manual test result was compared to a single MAGO 4S result for each sample. Equivocal results were specifically addressed in a retest zone assessment.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This study focuses on the performance of the automated instrument itself (standalone performance) against manual methods or established standards, not on the improvement of human readers with AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire submission details the performance of the MAGO 4S automated instrument (algorithm only, without human-in-the-loop performance) in various aspects such as precision, linearity, and agreement with established methods/standards.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Existing Legally Marketed Devices/Manual Methods: For precision, linearity, and positive/negative agreement, the "Diamedix test kit" (manual method) serves as the comparator, and its results are implicitly considered ground truth for comparison.
• Reference Standards/Panels:
  • CDC Performance Panel: The "CDC Target" results for the 100 sera served as the external ground truth.
  • CDC Biological Standard: The expected IU/ml values for the various dilutions of the Low-Titer Anti Rubella Human Reference Serum served as the reference ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not provide information on a specific "training set" or sample sizes used for training the MAGO 4S in the context of machine learning or AI. This device appears to be an automated instrument following predefined protocols for assays (EIA/IFA) rather than a system requiring extensive machine learning model training on large datasets in the way modern AI devices do. Its "development" would involve engineering and calibration rather than algorithm training on a separate dataset.

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

• As noted in point 8, the document does not describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning. Therefore, methods for establishing ground truth for such a set are not applicable or described within this submission. The "ground truth" for the device's operational parameters would have been established during its engineering, calibration, and internal validation processes based on reference materials and established assay principles.

Ask a specific question about this device