Search Results

1. For the qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to Epstein-Barr (EB), viral capsid antigen (VCA) in human serum by enzyme immunoassay, as an aid in differentiating active or recent Epstein-Barr virus infection from past infection.
2. For in vitro diagnostic use only.
3. A positive result is presumptive for the detection of anti-Epstein-Barr virus IgM antibodies and presumptive for the diagnosis of acute or recent Epstein-Barr virus infection.

The SeraQuest EB VCA IgM test is a solid-phase enzyme immunoassay (EIA), which is performed in microwells, at room temperature, in three thirty minute incubations. It has been developed to detect IgM antibodies which are directed against Epstein-Barr virus capsid antigen, in human serum.

The Calibrators in the SeraQuest EB VCA IgM test set have been assigned Index values based on an in-house standard. Test results are reported as Index values.

The provided document describes the SeraQuest EB VCA IgM test, an enzyme immunoassay designed to detect IgM antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus capsid antigen in human serum. This diagnostic test aims to differentiate active or recent EBV infection from past infection.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study data 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 sensitivity, specificity, or positive/negative predictive values. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device by comparing overall agreement.

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

• Sample Size: 157 specimens.
• Data Provenance: "Archival Patient Specimens Tested at SeraQuest, Miami, FL". This indicates the data is retrospective and from the USA (Miami, FL).

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications to establish the ground truth for the test set. The comparison is made against a predicate device (Gull Laboratories' EBV IgM ELISA), which acts as the reference for classification (positive, negative, equivocal).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method involving multiple readers or experts to resolve discrepancies between the SeraQuest test and the predicate device. The results are presented as a direct comparison between the two tests.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted or reported for this device. The study is a direct comparison of the new device's performance against a predicate device, not an evaluation of human reader improvement with or without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, the study describes the standalone performance of the SeraQuest EB VCA IgM test. As an enzyme immunoassay, it produces a quantitative result (Index value) which is then interpreted qualitatively (positive, negative, equivocal) without direct human-in-the-loop performance during the result generation. The comparison is between the standalone performance of the new device and the standalone performance of the predicate device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this study is the results obtained from the predicate device, Gull Laboratories' EBV IgM ELISA test. The study evaluates the concordance of the SeraQuest test with this predicate rather than an independent, gold-standard ground truth like pathology or long-term clinical outcomes.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate training set size. The 157 specimens are referred to as "archival patient specimens" used for the comparison study. As this is an immunoassay and not a machine learning algorithm in the modern sense that requires explicit "training," the concept of a separate training set is not directly applicable in the terms usually associated with AI/ML development. The "in-house standard" mentioned for assigning Index values to calibrators might involve some internal standardization, but it's not a training set in the context of supervised learning.

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

Given that a training set in the AI/ML context is not explicitly mentioned or relevant, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable here. The test performance is evaluated against the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device