Search Results

The QUANTA Lite™ CCP3.1 IgG/IgA ELISA is a semiquantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of IgG and IgA anti-CCP3 (Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide 3) antibodies in patient sera or citrated or EDTA plasma. The presence of these antibodies, when considered in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings, is an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including RA diagnosed within 2 years of presentation of symptoms.

Not Found

Here's the analysis of the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study details for the QUANTA Lite™ CCP 3.1 IgG/IgA ELISA device.

It's important to note that the provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and an Indications For Use statement. This type of document typically does NOT include the detailed study design, acceptance criteria, or performance data that would be found in the actual 510(k) submission or a scientific publication. The FDA letter confirms substantial equivalence to a predicate device, implying that the device met certain performance expectations, but the specifics of those expectations and the data demonstrating them are not in this document.

Therefore, for most of your requested points, I will have to state that the information is "Not available in the provided text."

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details for QUANTA Lite™ CCP 3.1 IgG/IgA ELISA

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and Indications For Use:

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

   • Not available in the provided text. The FDA clearance letter confirms substantial equivalence but does not detail specific acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) or quantitative performance metrics (e.g., specific sensitivity/specificity values, prevalence estimates) from the study. Such data would be in the full 510(k) submission.

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

   • 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)

   • Not available in the provided text. For an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) like an ELISA, ground truth is typically established by other diagnostic methods (e.g., established clinical criteria for RA, confirmatory serological tests, or clinical follow-up), rather than direct expert interpretation of images or complex data as might be the case for imaging AI. The "experts" would primarily be the clinicians diagnosing RA in the patient cohorts.

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

   • Not applicable/Not available in the provided text. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used for subjective assessments (e.g., image interpretation) where multiple readers' opinions need to be reconciled. For an ELISA device, the "reading" is an objective measurement (e.g., optical density value) that is then compared against a cut-off. The clinical diagnosis (ground truth) typically comes from a physician's assessment based on multiple factors, which can implicitly involve a form of clinical "adjudication" based on established diagnostic criteria. The method for establishing this clinical ground truth is not detailed.

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/Not available in the provided text. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (ELISA test) for detecting antibodies, not an AI-based imaging or interpretive device that aids human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant to this type of medical device.

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

   • Yes, this is implicitly a standalone device. An ELISA test is an "algorithm only" in the sense that it provides a quantitative result (e.g., optical density) which is then translated into a qualitative result (e.g., positive/negative) based on a predetermined cut-off. The "human-in-the-loop" aspects involve the laboratory technician performing the test and the clinician interpreting the result in the context of the patient's overall clinical picture, but the device itself generates a result independently.

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

   • Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but implied to be a clinical diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). For an in vitro diagnostic aid in the diagnosis of RA, the ground truth would typically be established by a physician using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) classification criteria for RA, possibly including long-term clinical follow-up or other accepted diagnostic standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not available in the provided text.

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

   • Not available in the provided text. Similar to the test set, it would likely be based on clinical diagnosis of RA using established criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device