LogoFDA 510(k) Search
Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K981388
    Device Name
    MICRO-STRIP FOR COCAINE METABOLITES
    Manufacturer
    MICRODIAGNOSTICS, INC.
    Date Cleared
    1998-05-29

    (43 days)

    Product Code
    DIO
    Regulation Number
    862.3250
    Type
    Traditional
    Panel
    Toxicology
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    MICRO-STRIP FOR COCAINE METABOLITES

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Microdiagnostics, Inc. Micro-Strip for Cocaine Metabolites is intended to qualitatively detect the metabolites of cocaine in urine at the SAMHSA/NIDA cutoff limit of 300 ng/ml.

    Device Description

    Not Found

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided FDA document (K981388) is a 510(k) clearance letter for the "Micro-Strip for Cocaine Metabolites" device. This document primarily focuses on regulatory approval and does not contain specific details about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, or the methodologies typically associated with evaluating AI/ML-based devices.

    The device described is a rapid, qualitative immunoassay for detecting cocaine metabolites in urine, which is a chemical assay, not an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, many of the requested criteria (e.g., sample size for AI test set, expert qualifications for ground truth, MRMC studies, training set details) are not applicable to this type of device and are not present in the provided text.

    However, I can interpret the available information to address the relevant aspects as best as possible for a traditional diagnostic device.

    Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

    Device Name: Micro-Strip for Cocaine Metabolites

    Intended Use: To qualitatively detect the metabolites of cocaine in urine at the SAMHSA/NIDA cutoff limit of 300 ng/ml.

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Strictly speaking, the document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a separate section with numerical goals for sensitivity, specificity, etc., nor does it provide a detailed "reported device performance" table as one might expect for a modern clinical study. However, the intended use defines a key performance characteristic. The device must accurately detect cocaine metabolites at a specific cutoff.

    Acceptance Criterion (Inferred)Reported Device Performance (Inferred/Not explicitly stated with data)
    Qualitative detection of cocaine metabolites in urine.The device is intended to perform this function. The FDA's clearance implies that the sponsor demonstrated adequate performance for this intended use, likely through comparison to a reference method, but the specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) are not included in this letter.
    Detection at the SAMHSA/NIDA cutoff limit of 300 ng/ml.The device is intended to operate at this specific cutoff. The FDA's clearance implies its capability to do so, though specific data is absent from this document.
    Substantial equivalence to a predicate device.The FDA found the device "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, which means its performance and safety profile are comparable. The specific predicate device and its performance are not detailed here.

    2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

    This information is not provided in the FDA clearance letter. For traditional diagnostic assays, performance is typically evaluated using a panel of urine samples (both positive and negative) that have been confirmed by a reference method (e.g., GC/MS). The exact number of samples, their origin, or whether they were retrospective or prospective are not mentioned in this document.

    3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

    This is not applicable and not provided. For a chemical assay like this, ground truth is established by a definitive analytical method (e.g., Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)), not by human expert opinion or interpretation in the way AI models are evaluated.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    This is not applicable and not provided. As ground truth is established by a definitive analytical method, there would be no need for expert adjudication.

    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

    This is not applicable. This device is a rapid diagnostic strip, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool requiring human interpretation and an MRMC study.

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

    This is not applicable. This device is a standalone chemical assay, not an algorithm. Its performance is inherent to the chemical reactions on the strip.

    7. The type of ground truth used

    While not explicitly stated in this letter, for qualitative drug screening assays, the ground truth is typically established by a definitive analytical method, most commonly Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). GC/MS provides quantitative and highly specific confirmation of the presence and concentration of drug metabolites.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    This is not applicable and not provided. This is a chemical assay, not an AI/ML model, so there is no "training set" in the computational sense. The development of the assay involves optimizing reagents and conditions, but not "training data" in the AI context.

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

    This is not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm, this question does not apply.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1