Search Results

A semiquantitative enzyme linked immunoasay for detecting IgG class autoantibody to βρ glycoprotein I (β GPT) for use as an aid in the diagnosis of of certain arcommand assessment lupus erythematosus disorders, such as those secondary to systemic lupus erythematosus disorders, Baon ake thrombotic diseases.

Not Found

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the QUANTA Lite™ B₂GPI IgG device:

Based on the provided text, it is a 510(k) submission for a device called "QUANTA Lite™ Beta 2 GPI IgG ELISA" which is an in vitro diagnostic device. The documentation provided is an FDA clearance letter and an "Indications For Use" page. This type of document typically references a study that was submitted for substantial equivalence, but it does not contain the actual study details, acceptance criteria, or performance data within the provided excerpts.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer most of your detailed questions directly from the given text. The text only states that the FDA has reviewed the submission and determined it to be "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices for the stated indications for use.

Below, I've outlined what I can infer or what is missing based on your request and the provided document:

Inferences and Missing Information:

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

• Missing. The provided text does not contain any acceptance criteria or reported device performance data. This information would typically be in the detailed study report submitted as part of the 510(k) application, which is not included here. For an ELISA assay, acceptance criteria would likely include sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision (intra-assay, inter-assay), linearity, and potentially comparison to a predicate device.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Missing. The sample size for the test set and data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) are not mentioned in this document.

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

• Missing. This information is not provided. For an ELISA designed to detect autoantibodies related to specific diseases, the "ground truth" would likely be based on a clinical diagnosis or a consensus of clinical findings, potentially including confirmation from other established laboratory tests or clinical experts (e.g., rheumatologists).

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Missing. The adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) is not mentioned.

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

• Not Applicable / Missing. This device is an ELISA kit, which is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-powered image analysis or diagnostic support tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study related to human readers improving with AI assistance would not be relevant or conducted for this type of device.

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

• Not Applicable / Missing in context of AI. While the ELISA assay itself operates as a "standalone" test (generating a result without human interpretation of complex patterns, but rather a direct numerical or semi-quantitative output), the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" typically refers to the performance of an AI algorithm without human intervention, which is not relevant here. The device's performance stands alone as a laboratory test.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Inferred: Clinical Diagnosis / Established Laboratory Methods. For an in vitro diagnostic test like this, the ground truth for establishing performance (e.g., sensitivity and specificity) would typically be based on a confirmed clinical diagnosis of the conditions it aims to aid in diagnosing (e.g., systemic lupus erythematosus, thrombotic diseases), often supported by a combination of clinical criteria and results from other established, often more invasive or complex, diagnostic methods or predicate devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Missing. This device is a biochemical assay (ELISA), not a machine learning model. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" in the context of AI/ML is not directly applicable. If you're referring to method development or validation sets, the sample size is not stated.

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

• Not Applicable. As noted above, this is not an AI/ML device that uses a "training set" in that sense.

Summary:

The provided document is an FDA clearance letter for an ELISA kit, confirming its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It does not contain the detailed performance study, acceptance criteria, or methodological specifics that you are asking for. Those details would be found in the actual 510(k) submission document itself, which is typically much more extensive than these two pages.

Ask a specific question about this device