Search Results

The Thermo BioStar® RSV OLA assay is an Optical ImmunoAssay test for the rapid and qualitative detection of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) antigens (nucleoproteins) from nasal wash and nasopharyngeal swab specimens. This test is intended for in vitro diagnostic use to aid in the diagnosis of RSV infections in symptomatic neonatal and pediatric patients under the age of five. It is recommended that all negative test results be confirmed by cell culture.

The RSV OIA test involves the qualitative extraction and detection of protein antigens unique to RSV (nucleoprotein and fusion protein). The Optical ImmunoAssay technology enables the direct visual detection of a physical change in the optical thickness of molecular thin films. This change is a result of antigen-antibody binding on an optical surface (silicon wafer). When an extracted specimen is placed directly on the optical surface, the immobilized specific antibodies capture the antigen. After washing, the substrate is added, increasing the thickness (mass enhancement) of the molecular thin film. This change in thickness alters the reflected light path and is visually perceived as a color change. Slight changes in optical thickness produce a distinct, visible color change. A positive result appears as a purple spot on the predominant gold background. When antigen is not present in the specimen, no binding takes place. Therefore, the optical thickness remains unchanged and the original gold color indicating a negative result.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the RSV OIA® device, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of specific sensitivity and specificity thresholds that needed to be met for regulatory clearance. Instead, it presents the achieved performance characteristics and compares them to a predicate device and historical standard method (viral culture). The implicit acceptance criterion seems to be demonstrating substantial equivalence to these established methods.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: A total of 414 nasalpharyngeal specimens were included in the data analysis from a multicenter study, with 77 specimens excluded.
• Data Provenance: The data was collected from a multicenter study with "geographically diverse clinical sites," indicating it was conducted in multiple locations. The study was clinical, suggesting prospective or a mix of prospective and retrospective data collection, focused on symptomatic neonatal and pediatric patients. Specific countries are not mentioned.

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

The document states that the RSV OIA test was compared to "commercially available cell culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining." It also mentions "Secondary confirmation testing of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture was done by specific nucleic acid detection by PCR."

This suggests that the ground truth was established by:

• Cell Culture: This is a laboratory standard, executed by trained laboratory personnel.
• Fluorescent Antibody Staining: Performed as a confirmation and typing method, also by trained laboratory personnel.
• PCR: Used for secondary confirmation, performed by trained laboratory personnel.

The document does not specify the number of individual experts who performed these ground truth assessments or their specific qualifications (e.g., "board-certified virologist with 10 years of experience"). However, the reliance on established laboratory methods implies qualified personnel.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document describes a clear adjudication process for discrepant results:

• "Secondary confirmation testing of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture was done by specific nucleic acid detection by PCR."

This indicates a hierarchical adjudication method where PCR was used to resolve discrepancies between the OIA test and primary cell culture results.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No, the document does not describe a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance. The device is a diagnostic assay (OIA), not an AI-powered image analysis or decision support tool for human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, the described clinical studies evaluate the standalone performance of the RSV OIA assay. The sensitivity and specificity figures (86.8% and 83.2% for nasal wash; 66.7% and 96.4% for nasopharyngeal swab) represent the performance of the device itself against the established ground truth. There is no human-in-the-loop component mentioned for the device's diagnostic output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was a combination of:

• Laboratory Reference Standard: Commercially available cell culture.
• Confirmatory Assays: Fluorescent antibody staining and specific nucleic acid detection by PCR.

This represents a strong form of ground truth based on established scientific and diagnostic methods.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information on a specific "training set" sample size. For an Optical ImmunoAssay (OIA) like the RSV OIA, the development process typically involves optimizing reagents and protocols during product development rather than training a machine learning algorithm on a distinct dataset. Clinical studies are performed for validation and performance assessment, not for "training" in the machine learning sense.

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

As there is no explicit mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning, there is no description of how ground truth for such a set was established. Product development and optimization would rely on laboratory-based characterization against known positive and negative controls, and potentially early clinical samples, similar to the methods described for ground truth in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Thermo BioStar® RSV OIA assay is an Optical ImmunoAssay (OIA) test for the qualitative, rapid detection of respiratory syncytial virus antigens (nucleoprotein) from nasal wash specimens. This test is intended for in vitro use to aid in the diagnosis of respiratory syncytial virus infections in symptomatic neonatal and pediatric patients under the age of five. It is recommended that all negative results be confirmed by cell culture.

The RSV OIA test involves the qualitative extraction and detection of protein antigens unique to RSV (nucleoprotein and fusion protein). The Optical ImmunoAssay technology enables the direct visual detection of a physical change in the optical thickness of molecular thin films. This change is a result of antigenantibody binding on an optical surface (silicon wafer). When an extracted specimen is placed directly on the optical surface, the immobilized specific antibodies capture the antigen. After washing, the substrate is added, increasing the thickness (mass enhancement) of the molecular thin film. This change in thickness alters the reflected light path and is visually perceived as a color change. Slight changes in optical thickness produce a distinct, visible color change. A positive result appears as a purple spot on the predominant gold background. When antigen is not present in the specimen, no binding takes place. Therefore, the optical thickness remains unchanged and the surface retains the original gold color indicating a negative result.

The provided text describes the RSV OIA® assay, a rapid test for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) antigens.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "The device must achieve a sensitivity of at least X%"). Instead, it presents performance metrics from the clinical studies. For the purpose of this analysis, we can infer that the reported performance was deemed acceptable for FDA clearance.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test set sample size:
  • Reproducibility study: 162 samples (9 blinded samples tested 3 times at 6 sites).
  • Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity study: 241 nasal wash specimens were included in the data analysis (out of 267 enrolled patients).
• Data provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the "two-site study in patients from emergency rooms and health clinics" and "four hospital laboratories and two physician office laboratories (POL)" suggest a prospective study design from clinical settings. The country of origin is not specified, but given the FDA submission, it's highly likely to be the USA.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing the initial ground truth (cell culture with fluorescent antibody staining). It only states that the comparison was made against "commercially available cell culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining."

However, for secondary confirmation testing of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture, "specific nucleic acid detection by PCR" was used. The expertise for performing and interpreting these methods is not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document describes secondary confirmation testing for discordant results in the sensitivity and specificity study: "Secondary confirmation testing of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture was done by specific nucleic acid detection by PCR." This implies a form of adjudication for discordant cases, where PCR acted as a tie-breaker or a higher-tier confirmation method for a specific subset of results. There is no mention of a traditional 2+1 or 3+1 expert review panel for the entire dataset.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

There is no mention of a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or any assessment of how human readers improve with or without AI assistance. The device is a diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human interpretation.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

Yes, the described performance of the RSV OIA assay is a standalone performance, as it is a diagnostic kit that provides a direct read-out (color change) and does not involve human interpretation beyond observing this change. The sensitivity and specificity figures represent the algorithm's (or assay's) performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for the clinical sensitivity and specificity study was:

• Expert Consensus/Reference Method: "Commercially available cell culture, with confirmation and typing by fluorescent antibody staining."
• Molecular Pathology (for discordant cases): "Specific nucleic acid detection by PCR" for secondary confirmation of specimens positive to OIA and negative to culture.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size. This is typical for traditional in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays, where the device's design and parameters are often developed using internal R&D, and then validated with independent clinical studies. The concept of a distinct "training set" as understood in machine learning (ML) is not directly applicable or discussed here.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

As no training set is explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not described. The development of the assay itself would have relied on established biological and chemical principles to detect RSV antigens, likely using purified antigens and characterized clinical samples during its optimization phase.

Ask a specific question about this device