Search Results

Pyloriset EIA-G is a qualitative enzyme immunoassay for the detection of Helicobacter pylori specific IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosing infection by H. pylori. The product is intended for use to test patients with symptoms of gastrointestinal disorders.

Pyloriset EIA-G is a qualitative enzyme immunoassay.

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for the Pyloriset EIA-G device and contains limited information regarding performance studies. Based on the available text, I can infer some details, but much of the requested information is not present.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based only on the provided text, with clear indications where information is missing:

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

The document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria or provide a table of reported device performance. It only indicates that the device has been found "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device.

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

This information is not available in the provided text.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not available in the provided text. The device is for "detection of Helicobacter pylori specific IgG antibodies in human serum," which typically relies on laboratory-based ground truth (e.g., culture, biopsy, or other validated H. pylori tests), not necessarily expert human review of images.

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

This information is not available in the provided text. Given it's an immunoassay, human adjudication in the traditional sense for image interpretation would not apply. Ground truth would be established by laboratory methods.

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

This is an immunoassay for detecting antibodies, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device. Therefore, an MRMC study and its associated effect size on human readers are not applicable and not mentioned in the provided text.

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

The Pyloriset EIA-G is described as a "qualitative enzyme immunoassay." As an immunoassay, its performance is inherently "standalone" in the sense that it provides a result based on the chemical reaction. Performance studies for such devices typically evaluate their accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity against a gold standard, which would constitute standalone performance. However, specific details of such a study are not provided in the text.

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

The document states the device "is a qualitative enzyme immunoassay for the detection of Helicobacter pylori specific IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosing infection by H. pylori." For a device like this, the ground truth would typically be established through highly accurate and accepted methods for H. pylori infection diagnosis, such as:

• Histopathology (biopsy with identification of H. pylori)
• Culture of H. pylori from biopsy
• Urea breath test or stool antigen test (which are highly accurate for active infection)
• A combination of these or a validated reference assay.

However, the exact type of ground truth used in the studies for this specific device is not explicitly stated in the provided text.

8. The sample size for the training set

The provided text describes a 510(k) clearance letter for an immunoassay. The concept of a "training set" is primarily relevant to machine learning/AI algorithms. Immunoassays are based on biochemical reactions and do not typically involve "training sets" in the same way. The development and validation of an immunoassay involve optimizing reagents and protocols, and then testing on clinical samples. The sample size and methodology for such validation are not available in the provided text.

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

As with point 8, the concept of a "training set" for an immunoassay is not directly analogous to AI. Therefore, how ground truth for a "training set" was established is not applicable and not mentioned in the provided text. The ground truth for the clinical samples used in the performance study (if described) would be established by methods mentioned in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device