Search Results

Establishment of reference curves for the determination of IgG, IgG14, IgM, C3c, C4, Transferrin, Albumin, α1-antitrypsin, α2-macroglobulin, Haptoglobin, α--acid glycoprotein, Prealbumin, Ceruloplasmin, RbP, Ig/L-chain lambda & kappa, ß2microglobulin, Soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR), IgE, and Ferritin by immunonephelometry with the Behring Nephelometer Systems.

N Protein Standard SL is a liquid standard prepared from human serum with stabilizers and preservative. It is intended to establish reference curves for the quantitative determination of human serum proteins by immunonephelometry with the Behring Nephelometer Systems (particle-enhanced nephelometry).

The provided 510(k) summary for the Dade Behring N Protein Standard SL primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device and discussing device stability. It does not contain the kind of detailed clinical study information (acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test/training, expert qualifications, adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth details) typically found in submissions for diagnostic devices with complex performance claims involving human interpretation or nuanced clinical outcomes.

This document describes a calibrator (a reference material used to ensure the accuracy of a diagnostic test), not a diagnostic device that directly produces an output for patient care. Therefore, the questions related to clinical performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, reader performance) and the setup of clinical studies (expert ground truth, adjudication, MRMC) are not applicable in the usual sense for this type of device.

However, I can extract the relevant information that is present in the document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• The document does not describe a "test set" in the context of clinical performance evaluation. The stability evaluation would typically involve multiple batches of the calibrator, tested at various time points, but the specific sample sizes for these tests are not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but "in-house protocols" suggests internal testing by the manufacturer. No country of origin for specific stability data is mentioned, but the manufacturer is based in Germany and the submission is to the FDA in the USA. The type of study (retrospective/prospective) for stability is not detailed, but it would have been prospective over the stated shelf-life.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a calibrator, not a diagnostic tool requiring expert interpretation or ground truth establishment based on clinical cases. The "truth" for a calibrator lies in its certified concentration values and stability characteristics, which are determined by analytical methods and quality control procedures, not human experts in a clinical setting.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable for the reasons stated in point 3.

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. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, nor does it involve human readers interpreting clinical cases.

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

• Not applicable. This is a biochemical calibrator, not an algorithm. Its performance is determined by its physical and chemical properties and its ability to accurately calibrate the intended assays.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For stability, the "ground truth" would be the known concentration of the analytes within the calibrator as determined by validated reference methods or master calibrators, and the acceptable limits of variation from these known concentrations over time. The document states it was evaluated according to "in-house protocols," implying internal reference standards and analytical methods were used.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning device, so there is no "training set" in the conventional sense.

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

• Not applicable (see point 8).

In summary, this 510(k) submission is for a medical device calibrator. The performance evaluation focuses on the chemical and physical stability of the calibrator itself and its substantial equivalence to a previously marketed calibrator for its intended use in calibrating existing diagnostic assays. It does not involve complex clinical studies with human participants, expert ground truth, or AI algorithms.

Ask a specific question about this device