Search Results

The RAMP CK-MB Assay is a quantitative immunochromatographic test indicated for use as an in vitro diagnostic product used with the RAMP Clinical Reader to measure CK-MB levels in EDTA whole blood. Measurement of CK-MB aids in the rapid diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The RAMP CK-MB Assay is not intended to monitor reperfusion patients. The RAMP CK-MB Assay is intended to be used only to prioritize patient management for those suspected of AMI.

The RAMP CK-MB Assay is a quantitative immunochromatographic test for the determination of CK-MB levels in EDTA whole blood. Diluted EDTA whole blood is added to the sample well of the Test Cartridge which houses the immunochromatographic test strip. The red blood cells are retained in the sample pad, and the separated plasma migrates along the strip. Fluorescent-dyed latex particles coated with anti-CK-MB antibodies bind to CK-MB, if present in the sample. As the sample migrates along the strip, CK-MB bound particles are immobilized at the detection zone, and additional particles are immobilized at the internal control zone. The RAMP Reader then measures the amount of fluorescence emitted by the complexes bound at the detection zone and at the internal control zone. Using a ratio between the two fluorescence values, a quantitative reading is calculated.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study proving device performance for the Response Biomedical Corp. RAMP CK-MB Premarket Notification (K033747) based on the provided text:

Important Note: The provided text is a 510(k) summary, which is a regulatory document. It describes the studies performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily pre-defined "acceptance criteria" in the rigorous sense of a clinical trial primary endpoint. Therefore, I will interpret "acceptance criteria" as the performance characteristics and comparative metrics targeted to establish substantial equivalence.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• 7.7% at 7.19 ng/mL
• 7.8% at 14.29 ng/mL
• 4.8% at 25.06 ng/mL
  Total Precision (%CV):
• 8.6% at 7.19 ng/mL
• 8.5% at 14.29 ng/mL
• 6.9% at 25.06 ng/mL |
  | Linearity (R-value & Slope) | R = 0.999 for actual vs. expected CK-MB concentration
  Slope = 1.05
  Offset = 0.098 |
  | Percent Recovery | Ranged from 99% to 111% (average 106%) for spiked CK-MB antigen (at 2.5, 5.0, 10.0, 20.0, 40.0, and 60.0 ng/mL concentrations) |
  | Hook Effect | No high dose hook effect up to 1000 ng/mL CK-MB |
  | Analytical Sensitivity (Lower Limit of Detection - LLD) | LLD = 0.32 ng/mL CK-MB |
  | Analytical Specificity (Cross-reactivity) | CK-MM and CK-BB: No significant cross-reactivity
  HAMA, HAGA, HARA, RhF: Limited cross-reactivity |
  | Interference | No evidence of cross-reactivity or interference observed for hemoglobin (up to 2000 mg/dL), triglyceride (up to 3000 mg/dL), bilirubin (up to 80 mg/dL), cholesterol, or heparin (up to 104 IU/mL). No trend observed with increasing interferent concentration. |
  | Normal Range | 0.00 to 3.74 ng/mL in a study of 180 healthy individuals (5th to 95th percentile).
  (Compared favorably to Triage: 0.80-4.94 ng/mL and Dimension: 0.10-3.11 ng/mL, and their package inserts). |
  | Precision (Replicate Correlation) | Combined Populations: R=0.993, R²=0.988 (n=183)
  Suspect AMI Patients: R=0.993, R²=0.986 (n=128)
  Normal Individuals: R=0.959, R²=0.920 (n=55) |
  | Method Comparison (Correlation with Predicate Device - Dimension CK-MB Assay) | RAMP CK-MB vs. Dimension:
• Combined Normal and Suspect AMI: R=0.986, R²=0.972 (n=363)
• Suspect AMI: R=0.984, R²=0.967 (n=183)
• Normal: R=0.882, R²=0.779 (n=180) |
  | Method Comparison (Correlation with Predicate Device - Triage CK-MB Assay) | Triage CK-MB vs. Dimension (for context/comparison):
• Combined Populations: R=0.981, R²=0.962 (n=363)
• Suspect AMI: R=0.981, R²=0.963 (n=183)
• Normal: R=0.457, R²=0.209 (n=180) |

Study Details:

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

   • Precision Study: 184 subjects (55 normal, 129 suspected AMI). Data provenance is from "individual hospital criteria," suggesting it might be from sites within Canada or the US, but the specific country is not explicitly stated. The samples were taken and stored refrigerated for up to one day between analyses, implying a prospective or recently collected retrospective setup.
   • Method Comparison Study: 365 subjects (180 normal, 185 suspected AMI). Data provenance similar to the precision study, from "individual hospital criteria." Normal subjects were consented, and waste samples were used for suspected AMI subjects. Samples were processed for rapid tests (RAMP and Triage) within one day, and heparin samples were frozen and sent to a reference lab for Dimension testing. This suggests a mixed prospective/retrospective approach.
   • Expected Values (Normal Range Study): 180 healthy individuals (84 males, 96 females). Data provenance is not specified beyond "normal population studied."

2. 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 device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) for measuring a biomarker (CK-MB). The ground truth for such devices is typically the quantitative value obtained from a reference method or predicate device, not expert interpretation of images or clinical diagnoses based on subjective input.
   • For the "Method Comparison Study," the Dimension® RxL Mass Creatine Kinase MB Isoenzyme Flex® assay was used as the reference method (predicate device) against which both RAMP CK-MB and Triage CK-MB were compared. The "ground truth" (or reference standard) in this context is the quantitative CK-MB concentration determined by the Dimension assay.
   • No human experts were used to establish the "ground truth" in the way one might for an imaging AI device; instead, an established laboratory method served as the reference. Clinical criteria for "suspected AMI" were mentioned as selection criteria for patients but not as the ground truth for an individual CK-MB value.

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

   • No adjudication method, as typically described for subjective assessments like clinical diagnoses or imaging interpretations, was mentioned. The comparison was statistical (correlation, slope, intercept) between quantitative measurements from different assays.
   • Outliers were removed from the dataset: "one outlier was removed from the population with suspect AMI" in the Precision Study, and "two outliers were removed from the suspect AMI samples from both the RAMP and Triage analyses" in the Method Comparison Study. This isn't an "adjudication" in the traditional sense but rather a data cleaning step.

4. 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

   • No MRMC or human reader study was mentioned. This device is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI for image interpretation or a decision support tool for human readers. Its performance is measured directly against predicate assays and analytical specifications.

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

   • Yes, the performance characteristics (precision, linearity, sensitivity, specificity, interference) and the method comparison studies represent the standalone performance of the RAMP CK-MB Assay and RAMP Reader system. It's essentially an "algorithm only" in the sense that the device outputs a quantitative value automatically, though it's an assay system rather than an AI algorithm as typically understood for imaging.

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

   • Analytical Performance (Precision, Linearity, etc.): Ground truth was established by controlled laboratory experiments using known concentrations of CK-MB and analysis of samples without known interferents.
   • Clinical Performance (Normal Range, Method Comparison): The "ground truth" or reference was the Dimension® RxL Mass Creatine Kinase MB Isoenzyme Flex® assay. For the normal range study, the normality of individuals was likely based on clinical screening (healthy individuals).

7. The sample size for the training set

   • The document does not explicitly describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This is a traditional IVD device (immunochromatographic assay). The development of such an assay involves extensive laboratory work to optimize reagents, antibodies, and detection protocols. This optimization phase isn't typically referred to as "training" in the same way an AI model is trained.

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

   • As there's no explicitly defined "training set" for an AI model, this question is not directly applicable. The development process would have involved establishing the ground truth for various analytical parameters through experiments with known samples and concentrations, guiding the assay's design and calibration.

Ask a specific question about this device