Search Results

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an in vitro quantitative assay for the measurement of allergen specific IgE in human serum. NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is to be used with the NOVEOS Immunoassay Analyzer. It is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic disorders in conjunction with other clinical findings and is to be used in clinical laboratories.

The NOVEOS Specific IgE Assay is an immunometric, chemiluminescent procedure for the quantitative determination of IgE of known specificity in human serum samples. It employs fluorescent labelled magnetic, streptavidin coated microparticles which are incubated with a biotinylated allergenic capture reagent, patient sample and monoclonal anti‐human IgE antibody: horseradish peroxidase conjugate. If present in the sample, IgE binds to the biotinylated allergen captured to the streptavidin‐coated microparticles to form a complex. After a final wash, the resulting complex is incubated with the enzyme substrate and a chemiluminescent signal is generated, the magnitude of which is proportional to the concentration of IgE in the patient sample. The concentration of allergen‐specific IgE is determined from a standard curve, which is traceable to the World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) 11/234.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the NOVEOS Specific IgE (sIgE) Assay outlines the device's performance, but it does NOT describe "acceptance criteria" in an explicit, quantifiable manner that is typically found in a clinical study report. Instead, the document presents study results and compares them to a predicate device (ImmunoCAP Specific IgE) to demonstrate substantial equivalence, and also to clinical diagnosis of allergic status. The closest approximations to acceptance criteria are implicit in the performance metrics presented (e.g., target ranges for sensitivity, specificity, agreement, precision, linearity).

This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not an AI/ML-based diagnostic imaging or analysis system. Therefore, the concepts of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance," "standalone (algorithm only) performance," "number of experts," "adjudication method," and "training set ground truth establishment" do not directly apply in the same way they would for AI-powered diagnostic imaging devices. The "ground truth" for this IVD device is established through reference methods (Skin Prick Test, Oral Food Challenge, ImmunoCAP predicate device) or established clinical diagnosis.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is provided and how it relates to the requested points, with interpretations where necessary for IVD context:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As mentioned, explicit acceptance criteria are not stated. However, the performance data presented effectively serves as the "reported device performance" that presumably met the FDA's requirements for substantial equivalence. I will present the key performance metrics from the document.

Key Performance Metrics (Implicit Acceptance Criteria)

• G010 (Johnson Grass): 72.9% (95% CI 62.7% to 81.2%)
• T007 (Oak): 71.7% (95% CI 58.4% to 82.0%)
• G002 (Bermuda Grass): 76.1% (95% CI 66.3% to 83.8%)
• W001 (Common Ragweed): 62.0% (95% CI 50.3% to 72.4%)
• E005 (Dog Dander): 71.9% (95% CI 54.6% to 84.4%)
• T003 (Common Silver Birch): 55.1% (95% CI 41.3% to 68.1%)
• F001 (Egg White): 52.8% (95% CI 37.0% to 68.0%)
• F002 (Cow's Milk): 50.0% (95% CI 34.1% to 65.9%)
  Literature citation provided for lower sensitivity values to support observed performance. |
  | Clinical Specificity | High, to minimize false positives | Varies by Allergen:
• G010 (Johnson Grass): 99.2% (95% CI 95.9% to 99.9%)
• T007 (Oak): 97.8% (95% CI 92.5% to 99.4%)
• G002 (Bermuda Grass): 97.1% (95% CI 92.9% to 98.9%)
• W001 (Common Ragweed): 93.6% (95% CI 86.8% to 97.0%)
• E005 (Dog Dander): 100.0% (95% CI 95.2% to 100.0%)
• T003 (Common Silver Birch): 100.0% (95% CI 93.2% to 100.0%)
• F001 (Egg White): 100.0% (95% CI 97.4% to 100.0%)
• F002 (Cow's Milk): 100.0% (95% CI 97.2% to 100.0%) |
  | Positive Agreement (vs. ImmunoCAP) | High, demonstrating comparability to predicate device | Varies by Allergen:
• G010 (Johnson Grass): 84.7%
• T007 (Oak): 83.8%
• G002 (Bermuda Grass): 89.4%
• W001 (Common Ragweed): 72.8%
• E005 (Dog Dander): 91.7%
• T003 (Common Silver Birch): 96.0%
• F001 (Egg White): 89.6%
• F002 (Cow's Milk): 64.5% |
  | Negative Agreement (vs. ImmunoCAP) | High, demonstrating comparability to predicate device | Varies by Allergen:
• G010 (Johnson Grass): 99.3%
• T007 (Oak): 94.6%
• G002 (Bermuda Grass): 96.8%
• W001 (Common Ragweed): 95.0%
• E005 (Dog Dander): 96.7%
• T003 (Common Silver Birch): 96.1%
• F001 (Egg White): 96.2%
• F002 (Cow's Milk): 98.9% |
  | Total Agreement (vs. ImmunoCAP) | High, demonstrating overall comparability | Varies by Allergen:
• G010 (Johnson Grass): 92.5%
• T007 (Oak): 88.5%
• G002 (Bermuda Grass): 93.8%
• W001 (Common Ragweed): 82.2%
• E005 (Dog Dander): 94.1%
• T003 (Common Silver Birch): 96.0%
• F001 (Egg White): 94.3%
• F002 (Cow's Milk): 86.9% |
  | Precision (Total %CV) | Typically low %CV for quantitative assays (e.g.,

Ask a specific question about this device

NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer: The NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer is an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay analyzer for measurement of analyte concentration in human specimens. It is intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the clinical laboratory.
NOVEOS™ Specific IgE (sIgE) Assay: The NOVEOS™ Specific IgE Assay is an in vitro quantitative assay for the measurement of allergen specific IgE in human serum. NOVEOS™ Specific IgE Assay is to be used with the NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer. It is intended for use as an in vitro diagnostic aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic disorders in conjunction with other clinical findings and is to be used in clinical laboratories.

The NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer is a high-throughput, highly automated immunoassay platform that employs magnetic microbeads as the solid phase. The immunoassay reaction takes place in individual reaction chambers in the reaction rotor, with other rotors containing patient samples and reagents. Liquids are moved by robotic pipettors. The reaction is quantitated by a combination of chemiluminescence and fluorescence measurements compared to a calibration curve, all performed by the analyzer with the NOVEOS software.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the NOVEOS™ Specific IgE (sIgE) Assay and NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer, specifically for the House Dust Mite D001 allergen. The information provided outlines the device's technical specifications and a study demonstrating its performance compared to a predicate device and clinical diagnosis.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding performance targets for each metric. However, it presents various performance metrics and their measured values. For the purpose of this request, we will infer the implicitly accepted performance based on the presented results and the fact that the device received FDA clearance.

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

• Precision Test Set: Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" in the context of clinical validation, but for precision determination:
  • Quantitative Samples: 8 samples were used.
  • Replicates: 80 replicates per sample (duplicate replicates, 2 runs/day for 20 days).
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).
• Detection Limits (LoB, LoD, LoQ) Test Set:
  • LoB: 60 replicates of analyte-free samples.
  • LoD: 300 replicates of low IgE samples.
  • LoQ: A panel of low analyte samples, 80 replicates per sample (duplicate replicates, 2 runs/day for 20 days).
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).
• Linearity Test Set:
  • Samples: Dilutions of D001 specific IgE samples. Number of distinct samples used for the dilutions not explicitly stated, but covers a concentration range of 0.03 to 133 kU/L.
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).
• Predicate Device Comparison Test Set:
  • Sample Size: 234 clinical samples.
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).
• Clinical Performance Study Test Set:
  • Sample Size: n=236 samples from patients.
  • Sub-groups: 117 samples identified as allergic positive (atopic), 119 samples from apparently healthy, non-atopic subjects.
  • Provenance: Not specified (country/retrospective/prospective).

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

The document does not mention the use of experts in establishing the ground truth for any of the quantitative performance studies (precision, detection limits, linearity).

For the clinical performance study, the "allergic status" (atopic vs. non-atopic) was established as ground truth.

• The status of 117 samples identified as allergic positive (atopic) was confirmed by skin-prick testing.
• The other 119 samples were from "apparently healthy, non-atopic subjects with no reported allergy."
• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The skin-prick testing implies evaluation by a clinician, likely an allergist, but no details are provided about the number or qualifications of the personnel performing or interpreting these tests.

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

There is no mention of any adjudication method for the test sets. The ground truth for the comparison study is the output of the predicate ImmunoCAP system, and for the clinical study, it's based on skin-prick testing and reported allergy status. This is not a human-reader based AI study, so standard adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) would not apply.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an automated in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool that involves human readers.

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

Yes, the device (NOVEOS™ Specific IgE Assay on the NOVEOS™ Immunoassay Analyzer) operates in a standalone manner without human intervention for the assay's execution and result generation. The performance data presented (precision, linearity, detection limits, agreement with predicate, and clinical performance) are intrinsic to the device's automated function.

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

• For comparison to predicate device: The ground truth was implicitly the results obtained from the Phadia ImmunoCAP system, which is the legally marketed predicate device. This serves as a reference for substantial equivalence.
• For clinical performance study: The ground truth for individual patient samples was their clinical allergic status, determined by a combination of skin-prick testing confirmation for atopic individuals and reported non-allergic status for non-atopic subjects. This is a form of clinical outcomes/diagnosis data.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithm development. This is an immunoassay system, and its development typically involves extensive analytical validation (precision, linearity, etc.) and clinical validation, rather than a distinct "training set" as understood in AI/ML. The development of such assays often involves optimization stages to establish reagents and protocols, but this isn't typically referred to as a "training set" in the same way as for AI.

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

As there's no mention of a "training set" in the AI/ML sense, this question is not directly applicable. For the development of the assay (which could be analogized to training, though not in the AI sense), the ground truth for calibrators and controls would be established through a rigorous process of standardization and traceability, often to international reference materials (e.g., WHO reference reagent serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) 11/234, as mentioned for the standard curve traceability).

Ask a specific question about this device