Search Results

• For the qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative detection of IgM antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in human serum by enzyme immunoassay, to aid in the diagnosis of Toxoplasma infection.
• A positive result is presumptive for the detection of anti-Toxoplasma gondii antibodies and presumptive for the diagnosis of acute, recent or reactivated Toxoplasma gondii infection.
• Patient testing with the SeraQuest Toxoplasma IgM assay must be accompanied by an anti-toxoplasma IgG antibody assay.
• Useful for the above indications, with specimens obtained from women of childbearing age and during pregnancy.
• For manual use, or for use with the HyPrep System Plus semi-automated fluid handler.

The SeraQuest Toxoplasma IdM test is a solid-phase enzyme immunoassay (ElA), which is erformed in microwells, at room temperature, in three thirty minute incubations. It has been seveloped to detect IdM antibodies which are directed against Toxoplasma gondii, in human serum. The Calibrators in the SeraQuest Toxoplasma IgM test set have been assigned Index values based on an in-house standard, and International Units (IU/ml) based on the WHO Anti-toxoplasma Serum, Human, (3rd international standard preparation). Test results are reported as Index values, or IU/ml.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, outlining the acceptance criteria and study details for the SeraQuest Toxoplasma IgM device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria with specific numerical thresholds for sensitivity, specificity, or overall agreement. However, it does present the results of a comparison study against a predicate device, which implicitly serves as the performance benchmark for market clearance due to substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 128 archival serum specimens.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but the study was performed "in-house at Quest International, Inc., Miami, FL," suggesting it was likely U.S.-sourced or a mix of sources available to them.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Retrospective. The specimens were "archival serum specimens" and included pre-existing categories like "normal, asymptomatic donors," "women being tested prenatally," "specimens reported to be positive for IgM antibodies to toxoplasma which were obtained from serum brokers," and "acute toxoplasma infections."

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

The concept of "ground truth" as established by experts in the context of diagnostic device submissions often refers to a definitive diagnosis determined by a gold standard method. In this case, the study compares the SeraQuest device against a predicate device (INCSTAR Toxoplasma IgM Clin-ELISA™). This means the "ground truth" for the performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) is relative to the results of the INCSTAR assay.

When discordant results were found between the SeraQuest and INCSTAR tests, "specimens giving discordant results were tested with a second legally marketed device, along with a representative number of positive and negative samples which gave concordant results." This implies a form of re-testing or confirmatory testing was used to resolve discrepancies, but it does not explicitly state that human experts were involved in establishing the final ground truth from these multiple tests, nor does it specify the number or qualifications of such experts if they were. The ultimate "ground truth" used for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and agreement was the INCSTAR predicate device's result (as indicated by the terminology "relative sensitivity" and "relative specificity" to the INCSTAR test).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The primary comparison was against the INCSTAR Toxoplasma IgM Clin-ELISA™ test. For discordant results, "specimens giving discordant results were tested with a second legally marketed device."

This suggests an implied adjudication method where:

1. SeraQuest results were compared to Incstar.
2. If SeraQuest and Incstar agreed, that was the result.
3. If SeraQuest and Incstar disagreed, a "second legally marketed device" was used to help resolve the discrepancy.
   • The document doesn't explicitly state how the final determination was made after testing with the second legally marketed device (e.g., if it was 2-out-of-3 agreement, or if one test was considered the ultimate arbiter among the three). However, the performance metrics reported are relative to the INCSTAR test, implying INCSTAR was still the primary reference.

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

• No Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Study was Done: This is a diagnostic assay (chemical/biological test kit), not an imaging or AI-driven diagnostic device that would typically involve human readers interpreting results or being assisted by AI. The device directly produces readings (Index values or IU/ml) which are then interpreted as positive, negative, or equivocal. Therefore, this section is not applicable.

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

• Yes, a standalone study was done. The SeraQuest Toxoplasma IgM test is an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) that directly produces a result (spectrophotometric reading at 405 nm). The reported performance (sensitivity, specificity, agreement) is for the device operating independently to detect IgM antibodies, using its own defined cut-offs for positive/negative/equivocal, and then compared to the predicate device, also operating as a standalone test. There is no concept of a "human-in-the-loop" for interpreting the primary output of this type of immunoassay when comparing its performance against another immunoassay.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The primary "ground truth" for performance evaluation was the results from a legally marketed predicate device, the INCSTAR Toxoplasma IgM Clin-ELISA™ kit. For discordant results, a "second legally marketed device" was used for further analysis, implying a form of comparative testing against established diagnostic assays rather than a histopathological "gold standard" or patient outcomes data.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithm development. For this type of immunoassay, development generally involves optimization and validation against characterized samples, but not typically a "training set" as understood in AI/ML. The 128 specimens are referred to as "clinical testing" and appear to be the primary validation set used for the substantial equivalence demonstration.

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

• As a training set is not explicitly identified or described, this question is not fully applicable. If indirectly referring to the method used to establish the "truth" for samples used in the overall development and validation of the assay (which might include samples used to define assay cutoffs prior to the formal clinical study), the document doesn't specify this for those hypothetical antecedent steps. The closest information available is how the predicate comparison study's "truth" was established, which was through comparison to another legally marketed device (INCSTAR).

Ask a specific question about this device