Search Results

The MDI RF Test is a semi quantitative Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) Kit for the detection of IgM antibodies against human IgG (RF) in human serum. The test is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE ONLY.

The Micro Detect, Inc. RF reagent ( MDI RF Test) is intended to be used as a manual procedure. The reagents are supplied as a micro plate coated with specific antigens and Controls, Wash Buffer, Sample Diluent, Conjugate, Substrate, and Stop Solution.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for sensitivity, specificity, or precision. These are inferred from the context of a 510(k) submission, where performance metrics are presented to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The values presented are the reported performance of the device, which is implicitly deemed acceptable by the FDA's clearance.

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

The provided text does not specify the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). It only mentions "patient results obtained using the MDI RF Test."

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

The document does not provide any information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not specify any adjudication method for the test set.

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

No. The document describes a diagnostic device (an immunoassay kit) for detecting antibodies, not an imaging or interpretive AI system that would typically involve human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not applicable here, and no information on human reader improvement with/without AI assistance is provided.

6. If a Standalone Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Yes, implicitly. The MDI RF Test is described as a "manual procedure" and an "in vitro diagnostic device." The reported sensitivity, specificity, and precision figures represent the standalone performance of the assay itself, without a "human-in-the-loop" in the sense of interpreting results from an AI system. The "human" in this context would be laboratory personnel performing the manual steps and reading the results, which is inherent to an IVD.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used. However, given that the test is "intended as an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis" and detects "IgM antibodies against human IgG (RF)," the ground truth for establishing sensitivity and specificity would likely be based on:

• Clinical Diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Established by a physician using a combination of clinical symptoms, physical examination, and other diagnostic tests (e.g., ACR criteria for RA).
• Reference Methods: Comparison against established, perhaps more labor-intensive or expensive, methods for detecting RF or diagnosing RA.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The provided text does not specify the sample size for a training set. This is consistent with a traditional IVD device development rather than a machine learning/AI model, where "training set" is a more common term. The development of reagents and assay parameters would involve extensive experimentation, but not typically a "training set" in the computational sense.

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

Since there is no mention of a "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model, there is no information on how ground truth for such a set was established. For a traditional IVD, the development and optimization of the assay would involve using known positive and negative controls, and samples from patients with confirmed diagnoses (or lack thereof), but these are part of the overall assay validation rather than a distinct "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device