Search Results

DPC's AlaSTAT Microplate and AlaSTAT EIA specific allergen modules and mixed allergen panels are intended for use with the AlaSTAT Microplate and AlaSTAT EIA Allergen-Specific IgE systems in measuring allergen-specific circulating levels of specific IgE. They are intended strictly for in vitro diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergic disorders.

The AlaSTAT® Microplate and AlaSTAT® EIA Allergen-Specific IgE allergy tests are liquid-phase immunoenzymometric assays in microplate and tube formats respectively for the detection of circulating allergen-specific IgE antibodies. The specific allergens are covalently attached to a soluble polymer/copolymer matrix, thus permitting optimum presentation of the determinants to circulating IgE antibodies. The Specific Allergen Modules and Mixed Allergen Panels for the AlaSTAT® Microplate and AlaSTAT® EIA Allergen-Specific IgE systems are run in the same manner as all other AlaSTAT® Microplate and AlaSTAT® EIA Allergen-Specific IgE tests. Test results are given in kilo-Units per liter (kU/L) for AlaSTAT® Microplate and International Units per milliliter (IU/mL) for AlaSTAT® EIA, as well as a Class number for both formats.

This document describes the AlaSTAT Microplate and AlaSTAT EIA Allergen-Specific IgE systems, specifically focusing on the performance equivalence of additional Specific Allergen Modules and Mixed Allergen Panels.

Here's an analysis of the provided text in relation to your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., minimum sensitivity, specificity, or correlation coefficients). Instead, it relies on a qualitative statement of "performance equivalence."

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

• Sample Size: The document mentions "a compressional de l'autorial de l'artists of patient samples," which is vague and does not provide a specific sample size. "Compressional de l'autorial de l'artists" appears to be a typo or OCR error and does not convey a meaningful quantity.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

• Not Applicable. The study is a method comparison study against predicate devices, not a study where human experts established a ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" here is effectively the results obtained from the predicate devices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not Applicable. As it's a method comparison, there was no adjudication process in the sense of resolving discrepancies between multiple human readers or annotators.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size:

• No. This was not an MRMC study. It was a comparison of device performance against other devices, not a study assessing the improvement of human readers with AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:

• Yes, implicitly. The comparison described is between the new AlaSTAT modules/panels and the predicate devices. This represents the standalone performance of the assay itself, as there's no mention of human intervention in interpreting the raw assay results that are then compared.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Comparative Reference Standard / Predicate Device Results. The "ground truth" for this study was the results obtained from established, legally marketed allergen-specific IgE assays (Pharmacia CAP System RAST® FEIA, existing AlaSTAT Microplate, and AlaSTAT EIA systems). The study aimed to show equivalence to these existing methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Applicable / Not Mentioned. This document describes a performance evaluation of a diagnostic test kit, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set in the typical sense. The "training" for such a device involves assay development, reagent optimization, and calibration, not a data-driven training set.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Mentioned. As noted above, this type of device does not typically have a "training set" with established ground truth in the way a machine learning model does.

In summary:

The provided document describes a method comparison study to demonstrate "performance equivalence" of new allergen modules/panels for existing AlaSTAT IgE detection systems against predicate devices. It lacks specific quantitative acceptance criteria and detailed information on sample size, data provenance, or the involvement of human experts for ground truth establishment. The "ground truth" was established by the predicate devices themselves.

Ask a specific question about this device