Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Osteomark NTx Point of Care (POC) is a urinary assay for the quantitative measure of the excretion of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) normalized to urinary creatinine (nM Bone Collagen Equivalents/mM creatinine). The test is used to monitor bone resorption changes following initiation of antiresorptive therapy (e.g., hormone replacement therapy).

Osteomark NTx Point of Care (POC) is a urinary assay for the quantitative measure of the excretion of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) normalized to urinary creatinine (nM Bone Collagen Equivalents/mM creatinine).

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "OSTEOMARK® NTx Point of Care (POC)". It is not a study report, and therefore, it does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer the questions about acceptance criteria and study design.

Specifically, the document does not provide:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, or details on training sets.
• Information on ground truth establishment (number of experts, qualifications, adjudication method, type of ground truth).
• Details on multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or standalone performance.

The letter simply states that the FDA has reviewed the 510(k) notification and determined the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, allowing it to be marketed. It refers to the "Indications For Use" which describes what the device does (measures N-telopeptides of type I collagen to monitor bone resorption changes following antiresorptive therapy).

To answer these questions, you would need to refer to the actual 510(k) submission document (K992997) or other study reports related to the OSTEOMARK® NTx Point of Care (POC) device, which are not included in this provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Osteomark NTx Point of Care (POC) Controls are assayed for the verification of device performance when using the Osteomark NTx POC for the quantitative measure of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) normalized to urinary creatinine (nM Bone Collagen Equivalents/mM creatinine). The controls are used as consistent test samples of known nM BCE/mM creatinine concentration that may be measured over time as a means of evaluating analytical precision, as well as device performance.

The Osteomark® NTx Point of Care Control Set is a human urine-based, liquid, 2-level control set to be used in quality control procedures with the Osteomark® NTx Point of Care test. The assayed control set is used for evaluating precision and systematic analytical deviations that may arise from reagent or device variations.

Here's an analysis of the provided 510(k) summary, specifically focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria:

Device: Osteomark® NTx Point of Care (POC) Control Set

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The 510(k) summary does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in terms of precision or accuracy targets. Instead, it describes the purpose of the controls and the method used to demonstrate their functionality. The acceptance criteria can be inferred from the study's objective: to demonstrate the control set's ability to evaluate the quality of day-to-day performance.

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

• Sample Size: The study used three manufactured lots of the Osteomark® NTx POC Control Set. For each control lot, each of the two control levels was tested six times a day for five days.
  • This equates to: 3 lots * 2 control levels/lot * 6 tests/day * 5 days = 180 data points (measurements).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but it is a premarket submission for a medical device in the US, so the study was likely conducted by the manufacturer (Metrika, Inc.) or a contracted lab under their supervision. It appears to be prospective data collection as it describes an evaluation study performed for regulatory submission. Country of origin is not specified for the data itself, but the applicant and reviewer are US-based.

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

• This device is a quality control material, not a diagnostic device that requires expert interpretation of results. Therefore, the concept of "ground truth" established by experts in a diagnostic context (like radiologists) does not directly apply here.
• The "ground truth" for a control material is its assigned value (concentration). How these assigned values were originally established for the control lots is not detailed in this 510(k) summary, but it would typically involve rigorous analytical methods and calibration traceable to reference materials.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1) are typically used in studies where multiple human readers interpret results and discrepancies need to be resolved.
• Since this study involves the analytical performance of an in vitro diagnostic control, there is no human adjudication method described or typically applicable. The results are quantitative measurements from an instrument.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done, 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 in vitro diagnostic quality control material. It does not involve human readers interpreting images or data for diagnostic purposes, nor does it incorporate AI. Therefore, concepts like human reader improvement with or without AI assistance are not relevant to this submission.

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

• This device is a physical control material, not an algorithm or software. Therefore, the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" is not applicable.
• The study does evaluate the device (control set) in a standalone analytical context, meaning its performance characteristics are assessed independently to verify its utility in controlling the main diagnostic assay.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the Osteomark® NTx POC Control Set, the "ground truth" for the controls themselves are their known or assigned quantitative concentrations of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) normalized to urinary creatinine. These values are pre-assigned to the control lots.
• The study then assessed how well the Osteomark® NTx POC device measured these known values from the control set to demonstrate the control set's utility for evaluating the device's performance.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The 510(k) summary does not mention a "training set" in the context of device development. This is because the Osteomark® NTx POC Control Set is a control material, not an algorithm that requires machine learning training data. There is no algorithm being trained here.
• The study mentioned (testing three lots, etc.) served as the validation/verification study for the control product itself.

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

• As there is no training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable.
• The ground truth (assigned values/concentrations) for the control materials themselves would be established through a characterization process, including:
  • Analytical testing using established reference methods.
  • Calibration against traceable standards.
  • Statistical analysis to assign a target value and acceptable range.
  • This process is not detailed in the provided summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Osteomark® NTx Serum EIA provides a quantitative measure of cross-linked Ntelopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) in serum as an indicator of human bone resorption. Serum NTx level is used to aid in predicting skeletal response (bone mineral density) to antiresorptive therapy and in monitoring bone resorption changes following initiation of antiresorptive therapy. Prior to initiating antiresorptive therapy, serum NTx level is used to determine the probability for a decrease in bone mineral density after one year in postmenopausal women treated with hormonal antiresorptive therapy relative to those treated with calcium supplement.

The Osteomark NTx Serum EIA is a competitive-inhibition enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA/EIA) for quantitative determination of NTx present in human serum. NTx is adsorbed to a 96-well microplate: Diluted samples are added to the microplate wells, followed by a horseradish peroxidase labeled monoclonal antibody. NTx in the specimen competes with the NTx epitope on the microtiter plate for antibody binding sites. Following a wash step, the amount of labeled antibody bound is measured by colorimetric generation of a peroxide substrate. NTx concentration is determined spectrophotometrically and calculated using a standard calibration curve. Assay values are reported in nanomoles Bone Collagen Equivalents per liter (nM BCE).

The Osteomark NTx Serum EIA is a competitive-inhibition enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA/EIA) designed for the quantitative determination of NTx in human serum. This assay is used to predict skeletal response to antiresorptive therapy and to monitor changes in bone resorption after therapy initiation. It also helps determine the probability of bone mineral density decrease in postmenopausal women on hormonal antiresorptive therapy versus those on calcium supplements.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document describes several studies:

• Reference Range Studies:
  • Premenopausal Women: N = 257 (multi-center, cross-sectional study at five regional sites). The country of origin is not specified but implied to be the US given the FDA submission. This was a prospective study to determine reference ranges.
  • Men: N = 176 (multi-center, cross-sectional study at three regional sites). The country of origin is not specified but implied to be the US. This was a prospective study to determine reference ranges.
• Intra-subject Variability Studies:
  • Postmenopausal Women: n=271 (short-term), n=261 (long-term). Provenance not specified. Retrospective/Prospective not specified for this specific study, but the overall context suggests prospective data collection in clinical settings.
  • Men: n=32 (short-term), n=27 (long-term). Provenance not specified. Retrospective/Prospective not specified for this specific study.
• Assay Reproducibility and Precision Studies:
  • Intra-assay variability: Four human serum specimens. Provenance not specified. Not directly tied to a clinical population, but rather assay samples.
  • Inter-assay variability: Eight human serum specimens. Provenance not specified. Not directly tied to a clinical population, but rather assay samples.
  • Total assay precision: Level I Serum Control and Level II Serum Control tested at four clinical laboratories. Provenance not specified. These are control materials, not patient samples.
• Antigen Recovery: Nine serum specimens. Provenance not specified. These are assay samples.
• Dilutional Linearity: Five serum specimens. Provenance not specified. These are assay samples.
• Clinical Studies (HRT):
  • Postmenopausal Women treated with HRT: The study enrolled a cohort of postmenopausal women. The baseline NTx mean was 15.9 nM BCE. Post-treatment mean was 12.2 nM BCE. While a specific N for the HRT group is not provided in this summary, the context suggests a clinical trial. The study results (Reference 4) indicate the source is likely from U.S. clinical trials. This was a prospective clinical trial.
• Clinical Studies (Bisphosphonate):
  • Postmenopausal Women treated with Bisphosphonate: The study was conducted at a regional specialty hospital in the northeast United States. The study was randomized and double-blind. N is not explicitly stated in the summary, but it involved women randomized to either placebo or alendronate. This was a prospective clinical trial.

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

The document does not describe the use of human "experts" to establish ground truth for the device performance studies in the traditional sense of a diagnostic interpretation.

For the clinical efficacy studies (HRT and Bisphosphonate), the "ground truth" was clinical outcomes:

• Bone Mineral Density (BMD) changes: Measured by objective methods (e.g., DEXA scans) over time. This is an objective clinical measurement, not expert consensus on an image or test result.
• Response to therapy: Defined by changes in NTx levels and subsequent changes in BMD.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The reported studies evaluate the analytical performance of the assay and its correlation with clinical outcomes (BMD changes), not the interpretation of results by human readers requiring adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No. The Osteomark NTx Serum EIA is an in-vitro diagnostic assay for quantitative measurement. It does not involve human readers interpreting images or data where AI assistance would be relevant for a MRMC study.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

Yes, implicitly. The performance characteristics (variability, recovery, linearity) and the clinical utility of the assay itself (e.g., "Osteomark NTx Serum EIA mean baseline values... fell significantly after 3 months of therapy") are reported as standalone performance of the diagnostic kit. There is no human-in-the-loop component for the assay's execution or the interpretation of the numerical NTx values for these studies. The physician uses the derived NTx value in clinical management.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Performance: The ground truth for analytical performance (variability, recovery, linearity) is based on established laboratory analytical methods and expected theoretical values for spiked samples or diluted controls.
• Clinical Studies: The ground truth for the clinical studies (HRT and Bisphosphonate) is outcomes data and objective clinical measurements:
  • Bone Mineral Density (BMD) assessed after one year.
  • Changes in NTx levels post-therapy. This is an outcome of the intervention, not an externally established ground truth for the device itself.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document describes the device performance validation and clinical studies. There is no description of a "training set" in the context of machine learning (AI) for this diagnostic assay. The terms "training set" and "test set" are not applicable in the typical AI sense to this type of in-vitro diagnostic device. Instead, the studies cited relate to establishing reference ranges and validating analytical and clinical performance.

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

Not applicable, as no "training set" in the AI sense is described. The analytical and clinical performance data were established through direct laboratory measurements and clinical trial outcomes, respectively, as outlined above.

Ask a specific question about this device

Osteomark is a urinary assay that provides a quantitative measure of the excretion of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) as an indicator of human bone resorption. Elevated levels of urinary NTx indicate elevated human bone resorption. Measurement of NTx is intended for use in:

A. Predicting skeletal response (bone mineral density) to hormonal antiresorptive therapy in postmenopausal women.

B. Therapeutic monitoring of:

• 1. antiresorptive therapies in postmenopausal women
• 2. antiresorptive therapies in individuals diagnosed with osteoporosis
• 3. antiresorptive therapies in individuals diagnosed with Paget's disease of bone

4. estrogen-suppressing therapies

C. Assessing the relative risk for loss of spinal bone mass after one year if not treated with hormonal antiresorptive therapy

Osteomark is a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) which utilizes a horseradish peroxidase labeled monoclonal antibody directed against the cross-linked N-telopeptides (NTx) present in urine specimens. An Osteomark® kit is comprised of the following reagents:

Antigen Coated 96-Well Plate Calibrators: 1 nM BCE 30 nM BCE 100 nM BCE 300 nM BCE 1000 nM BCE 3000 nM BCE Antibody Conjugate Concentrate Antibody Conjugate Diluent Level I and Level II Urine Controls 30X Wash Concentrate Buffered Substrate Chromogen Reagent Stopping Reagent

The solid phase utilizes microwells onto which NTx has been adsorbed. NTx in the specimen or Calibrator competes with the solid phase NTx for antibody binding sites. The resulting amount of Antibody Conjugate bound to the solid phase is indirectly proportional to the amount of NTx in the specimen or Calibrator. The quantity of NTx in the specimen is determined from a standard calibration curve using reagents supplied in the kit. Assay values are standardized to an equivalent amount of bone collagen, and are expressed in nanomole bone collagen equivalents per liter (nM BCE). BCE reflects the amount of immunoreactive NTx, as measured by Osteomark, liberated from human bone collagen following digestion with bacterial collagenase, as measured by hydroxyproline by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Here's an analysis of the provided text, outlining the acceptance criteria and the studies performed for the Osteomark® device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Osteomark®

The Osteomark® device is a urinary assay designed to quantitatively measure N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) as an indicator of human bone resorption. The provided documentation details several performance characteristics and studies that likely served as the basis for acceptance criteria.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria with defined pass/fail thresholds for a regulatory submission. Instead, it presents performance characteristics and reference ranges derived from studies. Based on the "Performance Characteristics" section, we can infer the following:

2. Sample Sizes Used for Test Sets and Data Provenance

The studies described are primarily for establishing expected values and performance characteristics rather than a single "test set" for a diagnostic accuracy study as might be seen for an imaging AI.

• Expected Values - Premenopausal Women:

  • Sample Size: 186
  • Data Provenance: Multi-center, cross-sectional study. Data from "normal premenopausal women without diseases, disorders, or currently taking medications which may affect bone metabolism or creatinine excretion." (Country of origin not specified, but the regulatory approval is US FDA).
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Implied prospective, as it describes a study being "conducted."

• Expected Values - Postmenopausal Women:

  • Sample Size: 91
  • Data Provenance: Additional multi-center, cross-sectional study. Subjects without diseases, disorders, or currently taking medications known to affect bone metabolism or creatinine excretion. (Country of origin not specified).
  • Retrospective/Prospective: Implied prospective.

• Intra-assay Variability (Reproducibility):

  • Sample Size: Eight urine specimens, tested in replicates of 10.
  • Data Provenance: Normal urine specimens. (Origin not specified).

• Inter-assay Variability (Reproducibility):

  • Sample Size: Three urine specimens, tested in duplicate over 20 separate assay runs.
  • Data Provenance: Normal urine specimens. (Origin not specified).

• Antigen Recovery:

  • Sample Size: Three normal urine specimens.
  • Data Provenance: Normal urine specimens. (Origin not specified).

• Dilutional Linearity:

  • Sample Size: Four urine specimens.
  • Data Provenance: Urine specimens with high nM BCE values and a urine specimen with a low nM BCE value. (Origin not specified).

• Interfering Substances:

  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated, implied to be multiple normal urine specimens.
  • Data Provenance: Normal urine specimens. (Origin not specified).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

For this type of in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, "ground truth" is typically established through biochemical methods and clinical classification based on objective criteria, not through expert reading or interpretation in the same way as an imaging AI.

• Ground Truth for Expected Values: The classification of subjects as "premenopausal" or "postmenopausal" (and "normal" without affecting conditions) would be based on medical history, clinical evaluation, and potentially hormone levels, managed by medical professionals involved in the multi-center studies. The NTx levels themselves are the measurement, not an interpretation of an image.
• Ground Truth for Performance Characteristics: The "ground truth" for reproducibility, linearity, and recovery is inherent in the known concentrations of analytes or the statistical methods used to quantify variability. No external "experts" are mentioned for establishing ground truth beyond the standard laboratory practices and quality control.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are relevant for subjective interpretations, often in imaging studies where readers might disagree. For an ELISA-based IVD like Osteomark®, the analysis is quantitative and objective, based on optical density readings and calculation from a standard curve. Therefore, such adjudication methods are not applicable and not mentioned for this device. The results are generated by the assay and interpreted against established normative data.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No. An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is designed to assess how human readers' performance (e.g., accuracy, efficiency) changes with and without the assistance of an AI algorithm, specifically in diagnostic tasks involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology). The Osteomark® is an automated quantitative assay (an ELISA kit) that provides a numerical result; it does not involve human "readers" interpreting output in the same way an AI for image analysis would. Therefore, this type of study is not relevant or applicable to this device.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, implicitly. The entire "Performance Characteristics" section describes the standalone performance of the Osteomark® assay. The device itself is an "algorithm" (a biochemical assay protocol) that generates a quantitative result. The reproducibility, antigen recovery, and dilutional linearity tests are all evaluations of the assay's performance without human influence on the measurement itself, beyond the correct execution of the protocol. The device provides a direct numerical output (nM BCE/millimole creatinine) without requiring human interpretation of a complex signal for diagnosis, unlike an imaging AI.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Expected Values / Reference Ranges: The ground truth used is clinical classification based on demographic (menopausal status) and health criteria, combined with biochemical measurements (NTx levels, creatinine) from the study subjects. The NTx level itself, standardized to creatinine, is the quantitative output.
• For Performance Characteristics (Reproducibility, Linearity, Recovery): The ground truth is established through known concentrations of analytes (e.g., adding known amounts of NTx for antigen recovery) or statistical definitions of variability for precision studies.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of "training set" is primarily relevant for machine learning algorithms where data is used to teach a model. For a traditional ELISA immunoassay like Osteomark®, there isn't a "training set" in the machine learning sense.

However, the calibration curve within each assay run could be considered analogous to a "training" component for individual measurements. The kit includes:

• Calibrators: 1 nM BCE, 30 nM BCE, 100 nM BCE, 300 nM BCE, 1000 nM BCE, 3000 nM BCE.
  • This constitutes the data points (known concentrations) used to construct the standard curve, from which unknown specimen concentrations are interpolated. The number of calibrators is 6.

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

For the Osteomark® assay, the "ground truth" for its internal calibration (the calibrators) is established by precise biochemical preparation and quantification of known concentrations of cross-linked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx). These calibrators are rigorously prepared and verified standards to ensure accurate determination of NTx in patient samples. The document mentions "BCE reflects the amount of immunoreactive NTx, as measured by Osteomark, liberated from human bone collagen following digestion with bacterial collagenase, as measured by hydroxyproline by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)." This indicates that the BCE values, and thus the calibrator values, are traceable to well-established analytical methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

Osteomark® is a urinary assay that provides a quantitative measure of the excretion of crosslinked N-telopeptides of type I collagen (NTx) as an indicator of human bone resorption. Elevated levels of urinary NTx indicate elevated human bone resorption. Measurement of NTx is intended for use in:

A. Predicting skeletal response (bone mineral density) to hormonal antiresorptive therapy in postmenopausal women

B. Therapeutic monitoring of:

• 1. anti-resorptive therapies in postmenopausal women
• 2. anti-resorptive therapies in individuals diagnosed with osteoporosis
• 3. anti-resorptive therapies in individuals diagnosed with Paget's disease of bone
• 4. estrogen-suppressing therapies

The measurement range of Osteomark is 20 to 3000 nM Bone Collagen Equivalents (BCE) of NTx.

Osteomark is a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) which utilizes a horseradish peroxidase labeled monoclonal antibody directed against the cross-linked Ntelopeptides (NTx) present in urine specimens. An Osteomark® kit is comprised of the following reagents:

Antigen Coated 96-Well Plate Calibrators: 1 nM BCE 30 nM BCE 100 nM BCE 300 nM BCE 1000 nM BCE 3000 nM BCE Antibody Conjugate Concentrate Antibody Conjugate Diluent Level I and Level II Urine Controls 30X Wash Concentrate Buffered Substrate Chromogen Reagent Stopping Reagent

The solid phase utilizes microwells onto which NTx has been adsorbed. NTx in the specimen or Calibrator competes with the solid phase NTx for antibody binding sites. The resulting amount of Antibody Conjugate bound to the solid phase is indirectly proportional to the amount of NTx in the specimen or Calibrator. The quantity of NTx in the specimen is determined from a standard calibration curve using reagents supplied in the kit. Assay values are standardized to an equivalent amount of bone collagen, and are expressed in nanomole bone collagen equivalents per liter (nM BCE). BCE reflects the amount of immunoreactive NTx, as measured by Ostcomark, liberated from human bone collagen following digestion with bacterial collagenase, as measured by hydroxyproline by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Osteomark®

This response synthesizes information from the provided text to describe the acceptance criteria and the studies that prove the Osteomark® device meets these criteria.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that Osteomark is a diagnostic assay, acceptance criteria typically revolve around its analytical and clinical performance in fulfilling its intended use. Here's a table based on the provided data:

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

The document provides details for several studies:

• Reference Range Determination (Premenopausal Women):
  • Sample Size: 258 women
  • Data Provenance: Multi-center, cross-sectional study; likely prospective for urine collection after study definition.
• Reference Range Determination (Men):
  • Sample Size: 81 men
  • Data Provenance: Study conducted at a large reference laboratory. Implied prospective since it's for reference range establishment.
• Within-Subject Variability:
  • Sample Size: 8 healthy subjects
  • Data Provenance: Urine specimens collected every 2-3 days over 2 months. Prospective.
• Intra-assay Variability:
  • Sample Size: 8 urine specimens, each tested in replicates of 10.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, likely internal lab testing.
• Inter-assay Variability:
  • Sample Size: 3 urine specimens, each tested in duplicate over 20 separate assay runs.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, likely internal lab testing.
• Antigen Recovery:
  • Sample Size: 3 normal urine specimens.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, likely internal lab testing.
• Dilutional Linearity:
  • Sample Size: 4 urine specimens.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, likely internal lab testing.
• Clinical Study: Predicting Skeletal Response & Monitoring HRT in Postmenopausal Women:
  • Sample Size (completed study): 227 women (109 HRT group, 118 calcium group)
  • Data Provenance: Multi-center, randomized, prospective clinical trial. (Campodarve et. al., 1995)
• Clinical Study: Monitoring Estrogen Suppressing Therapy:
  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for all analyses, but for percent change analysis: 88 subjects (55/88 had ≥30% change, 33/88 had <30% change).
  • Data Provenance: Multi-center, non-randomized, prospective, longitudinal clinical trial. (Marshall et. al., 1996)
• Clinical Study: Monitoring Anti-Resorptive Therapy in Paget's Disease:
  • Sample Size: 72 subjects at baseline, varying slightly by timepoint and analysis (e.g., N=22, 17, 20 for Month 1 by therapy).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated as multi-center, but implies a clinical research study. Prospective.
• Clinical Study: Monitoring Anti-Resorptive Therapy in Osteoporosis (Alendronate Trial):
  • Sample Size: Alendronate group: 91 at baseline, varying to 78 at Month 36. Calcium-only group: 188 at baseline, varying to 149 at Month 36.
  • Data Provenance: Multi-center, randomized, prospective study. (Liberman et. al., 1995)

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth, except implicitly through the nature of the studies:

• For BMD measurements (DEXA): Implies standard clinical practice for interpreting DEXA scans, likely by radiologists or trained technicians/clinicians.
• For Paget's disease diagnosis: Based on "radiographic evidence and a serum total alkaline phosphatase level at least twice the upper limit of normal," implying diagnoses made by specialists (e.g., endocrinologists, rheumatologists) who interpret these results.
• For osteoporosis diagnosis: Based on "lumbar spine bone mineral density ≥ 2.5 SD below the mean for mature premenopausal women," implying diagnosis by specialists.
• For hormonal assays (estradiol): Standard laboratory values and their interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing ground truth in any of the studies mentioned. The clinical studies appear to rely on standard clinical diagnostic criteria and objective measurements (DEXA, serum markers).

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is described in the provided text. The studies focus on the performance of the Osteomark® assay itself, either in isolation or in conjunction with clinical outcomes, rather than evaluating human readers' performance with and without AI assistance (which would not be applicable for an in vitro diagnostic assay like Osteomark®).

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop) Performance

Yes, the performance characteristics and clinical studies describe the standalone performance of the Osteomark® assay (the "algorithm only"). It's an in vitro diagnostic test where the output (Osteomark® value) is generated by the assay itself, and then interpreted by a clinician. There is no human-in-the-loop directly interacting with the algorithm's output generation process in the sense of an AI-assisted diagnostic system where a human reader's interpretation is augmented or compared to the AI.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used varies by the type of study:

• Analytical Performance: Based on known concentrations (e.g., calibrated standards for LLOD, antigen recovery, dilutional linearity) and statistical measures of precision (CV).
• Predicting Skeletal Response to HRT:
  • Bone Mineral Density (BMD) changes: Measured by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA).
  • Response to HRT: Defined as "maintenance or gain in BMD."
• Monitoring Estrogen Suppressing Therapy:
  • Serum Estradiol Levels: Direct measurement of the therapy's effect on estrogen.
  • Lumbar Spine (L1-L4) BMD changes: Measured by DEXA.
• Monitoring Anti-Resorptive Therapy in Paget's Disease:
  • Normalization of Serum Total Alkaline Phosphatase: A widely accepted clinical marker for Paget's disease activity and therapeutic response.
  • Radiographic evidence: For initial diagnosis.
• Monitoring Anti-Resorptive Therapy in Osteoporosis:
  • Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density (BMD): Specifically, ≥ 2.5 SD below the mean for mature premenopausal women for baseline diagnosis.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly delineate a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithm development. Osteomark® is described as a competitive ELISA assay, indicating it is a biochemical test, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, the concept of a separate training set for algorithm development (beyond the analytical validation and clinical validation described) does not apply in the typical sense. The "training" of the assay involves the establishment of the standard calibration curve using the provided calibrators.

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

As Osteomark® is a competitive ELISA assay and not an AI algorithm, the concept of a "training set" with ground truth in the AI sense is not applicable. The assay's "calibration" or "standardization" is achieved through:

• Calibrators: The kit includes six calibrators with known concentrations (1 nM BCE to 3000 nM BCE). These calibrators are used to generate a standard curve, which is essential for quantifying NTx in patient samples.
• Standardization to Bone Collagen: Assay values are standardized to an equivalent amount of bone collagen, and expressed in nM BCE, reflecting immunoreactive NTx liberated from human bone collagen following digestion with bacterial collagenase, as measured by hydroxyproline by HPLC. This process ensures the assay measures the intended analyte accurately and consistently.

Ask a specific question about this device