Search Results

A drug of abuse assay intended for use in clinical toxicology laboratories, physicians' offices, drug-of-abuse clinics and law enforcement agencies is an in-vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative identification of cocaine and the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine, in urine. Measurements that are obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of cocaine use or overdose.

A drug of abuse assay intended for use in clinical toxicology laboratories, physicians' offices, drug-of-abuse clinics and law enforcement agencies is an in-vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative identification of cocaine and the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine, in urine. Measurements that are obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of cocaine use or overdose. The QuickScreen TM One Step Cocaine Test utilizes colloidal gold as the label like other commercially available immunoassays for drug of abuse (Cocaine) test kits, to qualitatively measure for the presence of Cocaine by visual color sandwich one step immunoassay technology.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details for the QuickScreenTM One Step Cocaine Screening Test, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a set of predefined thresholds. Instead, it describes the device's performance in comparison to predicate devices, implying that achieving performance comparable to established methods serves as the de facto acceptance criteria.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "clinical sample correlation study" and "blind labeled cocaine study" but does not provide the number of samples used in these studies.
• Data Provenance: The studies used "clinical specimens," suggesting real-world samples. The sites of clinical testing were Poison Laboratories (San Diego, CA) and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (San Diego, CA). This indicates the data is from the USA and is likely retrospective clinical data, although not explicitly stated as such.

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

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated.
• Qualifications of Experts: The document states that "the Phamatech QuickScreen™ exhibited excellent performance in the hands of professional laboratory technicians." This implies professional laboratory technicians were involved in evaluating the results, but their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, specific certifications) are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. The comparison was made against "Syva EMIT II (San Jose, CA 95161) and the ABI Surestep (San Diego CA. 92121)," which are predicate devices. This suggests that the results of the QuickScreen were compared directly to the results obtained from these established methods, rather than an independent expert adjudication process for each sample.

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 question is not applicable to this device. The QuickScreen™ One Step Cocaine Screening Test is an in-vitro diagnostic immunoassay for qualitative detection of cocaine in urine. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool or an imaging device, and therefore, an MRMC study related to human readers improving with AI assistance would not be relevant.

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

• This question is not entirely applicable in the context of an immunoassay. The device itself is a "one-step immunoassay technology" that produces a "visual color" result. While a human "reads" and interprets the visual color, the core detection is performed by the colloidal gold immunoassay. The performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) are reported for the device as observed by "professional laboratory technicians," indicating human involvement in the final reading, but the device's mechanism is autonomous in producing the visual result. There is no "algorithm only" performance reported in the sense of a software-based AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth was established by comparison to predicate devices: Syva EMIT II and ABI Surestep. These are established, commercially available immunoassay tests for cocaine detection. Essentially, the results from these predicate devices served as the "truth" against which the QuickScreen™ results were correlated.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not explicitly stated. The document does not mention a separate "training set" for the device's development. Immunoassays typically rely on established biochemical principles and reagents rather than machine learning training sets in the modern sense.

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

• Not applicable/Not explicitly stated. As there's no mention of a traditional "training set" in the context of machine learning, the concept of establishing ground truth for it doesn't apply directly. The development of such an immunoassay would involve optimization of reagents and conditions, with performance validated against known positive and negative controls during the development phase.

Ask a specific question about this device