Search Results

The Osmetech Microbial Analyzer-Bacterial Vaginosis (OMA™-BV) is an automated in vitro diagnostic device intended for use to indirectly measure bacterial presence by semi-quantitative analysis of volatile compounds released into the headspace above a high vaginal swab. The OMA™-BV is indicated for use as an adjunct for the diagnosis of Bacterial vaginosis (BV). The device may be used together with other clinical and patient information when diagnosing BV including pH, vaginal discharge characteristics, amine odor and clue cells or gram stain procedures that are currently commonly used to diagnose infection.

The OMA™-BV uses "electronic nose" technology for the detection of volatile compounds released from microorganisms in human specimens. The principle is based on the release of volatile compounds from bacteria into the headspace [the volume above the High Vaginal Swab (HVS) samples] of clinical samples. The volatile compounds are detected by an array of gas sensors based on patented conducting polymer technology.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Osmetech Microbial Analyser™ - Bacterial Vaginosis (OMA™-BV)

The Osmetech Microbial Analyser™ - Bacterial Vaginosis (OMA™-BV) is an automated in vitro diagnostic device intended for use as an adjunct for the diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis (BV).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "The device must achieve X% agreement"). Instead, it reports the observed performance in comparison to established clinical methods. The implicit acceptance is based on demonstrating comparable or better agreement than existing comparisons between those clinical methods themselves.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a single number for the entire test set. The percentages reported are based on a "multi-center clinical trial of subjects with suspected BV."
• Data Provenance: Prospective, multi-center clinical trial conducted in the U.S. and the U.K.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with X years of experience). However, it references established clinical procedures for BV diagnosis:

• Amsel criteria
• Nugent scoring system (Gram stain procedures)
• Clinical diagnosis (presumably by clinicians/physicians)

This implies that the "ground truth" was established by multiple clinical professionals utilizing these standard diagnostic methods. Their specific qualifications are not detailed beyond "clinicians" for "clinical diagnosis" and presumably laboratory personnel and clinicians for Nugent scoring and Amsel criteria.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not specify a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for resolving discrepancies in the ground truth. It states that the OMA™-BV was compared to "the combination of three clinical procedures commonly used to diagnose BV (the Nugent scoring system, Amsel criteria, and clinical diagnosis)." This suggests that each of these methods independently contributed to the comparative dataset, but the process for combining or adjudicating their results to form a single "ground truth" for each patient is not detailed. It relies on the existing clinical consensus of these combined methods lacking a single "gold standard."

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or described. The study compared the OMA™-BV device performance to established clinical procedures rather than directly comparing human readers with and without AI assistance.

• Effect Size: Not applicable, as an MRMC study was not described.

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

Yes, the described clinical trial evaluated the standalone performance of the OMA™-BV device. The device generated its results independently, which were then compared against the results from the established clinical diagnostic methods. The device is intended as an adjunct, meaning it works with human clinicians, but the performance data presented is the device's direct agreement with the clinical standards.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used was a composite clinical diagnosis/expert consensus, based on established clinical procedures for BV diagnosis. Specifically, it was determined by the "combination of three clinical procedures commonly used to diagnose BV (the Nugent scoring system, Amsel criteria, and clinical diagnosis)." The document explicitly states, "Since there is no "gold standard" for diagnosis of BV, agreement between current clinical procedures and the OMA™-BV device results was used to compare BV diagnostic methods."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate sample size for a training set. The clinical trial data reported appears to be the primary performance evaluation. While "the detection threshold of the BV device has been set to detect levels of volatile metabolites found in specimens associated with BV, as demonstrated in a multi-center clinical trial," this might imply some forms of internal calibration or development against a dataset, but a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning model development (as might be expected for an AI device today) is not provided.

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

As a separate training set is not explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not detailed. Any internal development or calibration would have presumably relied on similar clinical diagnostic methods (Nugent, Amsel, clinical diagnosis) to determine the "levels of volatile metabolites found in specimens associated with BV."

Ask a specific question about this device