Search Results

The Starswab Culture Collection and Transport System is selfcontained, sterile and intended for maintaining the viability of clinical specimens during transportation to the laboratory.

The Starswab Culture Collection and Transport System is selfcontained, sterile and intended for maintaining the viability of clinical specimens during transportation to the laboratory. The medium contains sodium thioglycollate as a reducing agent and the moisture and media depth provide an ideal environment for the survival of both aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Note: The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "recovery rate must be >X%"). The acceptance criterion is implied by the comparison to the predicate device and the judgment of "equivalence."

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document simply states "Known inocula of ATCC type cultures and clinically significant microorganisms." It does not specify the number of different ATCC strains or clinically significant microorganisms used. It also doesn't specify how many replicates were performed for each microorganism.
• Data Provenance: The study appears to be prospective (controlled laboratory experiment) and performed by the manufacturer, or a facility working on their behalf. The country of origin of the data is not explicitly stated beyond the contact address for the manufacturer (Canada) and the predicate device manufacturer (USA).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

This information is not provided. The "ground truth" here is the growth characteristics of the microorganisms. While someone would have interpreted these results, their number and qualifications are not mentioned.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not provided. It's unclear how agreement was reached on "no significant differences" or "results were judged to be equivalent" if multiple individuals were involved in assessing growth characteristics. It's possible a single individual made these judgments.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study is a microbiological performance study comparing two transport media, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device evaluated by human readers.

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

This question is not applicable as the device is a microbiological specimen collection and transport system, not an algorithm or AI. The performance tested was the ability of the medium to maintain microbial viability, which is a standalone performance of the device itself.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth used was microbial growth characteristics (i.e., whether the inoculated microorganisms grew successfully after transport in the Starswab vs. the predicate device). This is a direct measure of the device's intended function.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable/Not mentioned. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The study describes the performance evaluation of the physical medical device.

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

Not applicable/Not mentioned. As above, this device does not use a training set in the context of AI/ML.

Ask a specific question about this device