Search Results

The Serim® Disintek GTA 2.1% Test Strip is a chemical indicator for use in determining whether the concentration of glutaraldehyde, the active ingredient in CIDEXPLUS 28 Day Solution, is above or below the minimum effective concentration (MEC) established for CIDEXPLUS 28 Day Solution.

Device Description

The device is a qualitative, single use, reagent test strip made up of a 0.40-inch square reagent pad that has been chemically treated to detect glutaraldehyde in CIDEXPLUS 28 Day solutions. The pad is affixed to one end of a 3.25 inch by 0.40-inch white opaque polystyrene strip.

AI/ML Overview

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for the Serim® DISINTEK™ GTA 2.1%. Instead, it refers to performance in comparison to a predicate device. The core functionality is to indicate whether the glutaraldehyde concentration is above or below the Minimum Effective Concentration (MEC) of 2.1%. The description focuses on the qualitative visual response.

Acceptance Criterion (Implicit)	Reported Device Performance
Reliable indication of glutaraldehyde concentration above MEC (2.1%)	When glutaraldehyde concentration is above 2.1% (MEC), enough base is produced to result in an irreversible and distinct purple color change on the indicator pad. Testing of freshly activated Cidex® Plus solutions always results in a solid purple color.
Reliable indication of glutaraldehyde concentration at or approaching MEC (2.1%)	When the glutaraldehyde concentration is at or approaching the MEC level, the base is neutralized by sodium bisulfite, and the indicator pad will display a distinctly blotched yellow and purplish appearance.
Reliable indication of glutaraldehyde concentration below MEC (approaching 1.5%)	As the glutaraldehyde concentration approaches 1.5%, the indicator pad will appear mostly yellow. The device will reliably indicate if the glutaraldehyde concentration is above or below the MEC level of 2.1%.
Substantial equivalence to predicate device	The performance of the Serim Disintek GTA 2.1% Test Strips was evaluated in split samples blind studies and compared to test results obtained with CIDEXPLUS Solution Test Strips. The performance is substantially equivalent to the predicate device.

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

The document states: "The performance of the Serim Disintek GTA 2.1% Test Strips was evaluated in split samples blind studies..."

Sample Size: The exact sample size for the test set is not specified in the provided text.
Data Provenance: The text does not specify the country of origin of the data. The study was a "blind study," which implies it was conducted to objectively assess the device's performance. It is a prospective study, as it's an evaluation of the device's performance under controlled conditions.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth in the "split samples blind studies". The ground truth appears to be based on the actual glutaraldehyde concentration (e.g., above 2.1%, at/approaching 2.1%, approaching 1.5%) rather than expert interpretation of the test strips.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly mention an adjudication method (like 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set. Given the nature of the device (a chemical indicator with a visual color change), the "ground truth" seems to be determined by the objective chemical concentration rather than requiring expert adjudication of reader interpretations, although visual interpretation is involved.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Its Effect Size

Was an MRMC study done? No, not in the sense of comparing human readers' performance with and without AI assistance. This device is a manual chemical indicator, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for Human-in-the-Loop scenarios. The study compared the new device's performance against a predicate device.
Effect Size: Not applicable as it's not an AI-assisted MRMC study.

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

This question is not directly applicable to the device as presented. The device is a "qualitative, single use, reagent test strip" that relies on a visual interpretation by a human observer. There is no "algorithm only" performance because the device itself is a passive chemical indicator that requires human observation for its intended use. The performance evaluation would inherently include the human interpretation component, or at least a comparison against a known chemical concentration.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the study appears to be the actual glutaraldehyde concentration in the CIDEXPLUS 28 Day solutions. The device is designed to indicate whether this concentration is "above or below the minimum effective concentration (MEC) established for CIDEXPLUS 28 Day Solution." This implies that the solutions used in the "split samples blind studies" had known glutaraldehyde concentrations.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or any machine learning/AI components. Therefore, a sample size for a training set is not applicable. The device relies on chemical reactions, not on data-driven models that require training.

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

As there is no training set for this chemical indicator device, this question is not applicable.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1