Search Results

The Sysmex® XT-Series is intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the clinical laboratory as a multi-parameter hematology analyzer.

The XT-Series is an automated hematology analyzer which consists of four principle units: (1) Main Unit which aspirates, dilutes, mixes, and analyzes whole blood samples; (2) Sampler Unit which supplies samples to the Main Unit automatically: (3) IPU (Information Processing Unit) which processes data from the Main Unit and provides the operator interface with the system: (4) Pneumatic Unit which supplies pressure and vacuum from the Main Unit.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Sysmex® XT-Series Automated Hematology Analyzer. It describes the device, its intended use, and claims substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Sysmex® XE-2100). However, it does not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study that proves the device meets those criteria.

Here's what can be extracted and what information is missing:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" with numerical targets for performance. Instead, it claims "Studies were performed to evaluate the equivalency of the XT-Series to the XE-2100. Results indicated equivalent performance." This implies the acceptance criterion was "equivalent performance" to the predicate device.

The comparison table on page 1 of the document focuses on features and parameters rather than specific performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity). It states "Performance: Same" for the XT-Series compared to the XE-2100, which has "Proven performance in FDA submission." This is a high-level statement rather than specific numerical performance data.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not provided in the document.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not provided in the document. For an automated hematology analyzer, the "ground truth" would typically be established by reference methods, pathologist review of slides, or other established laboratory techniques, rather than "experts" in the context of image interpretation. However, the document doesn't detail how the truth was established for the comparison studies.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not provided in the document.

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

This type of study is not applicable to this device. This is an automated hematology analyzer, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that humans would use for interpretation. The comparison is between two automated devices.

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

Yes, this is a standalone device. The entire purpose of the 510(k) is to demonstrate the performance of the XT-Series analyzer itself. The "Clinical Performance Data" section on page 0 describes studies "to evaluate the equivalency of the XT-Series to the XE-2100," indicating a standalone performance comparison.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The document does not explicitly state how "ground truth" was established for the performance studies. For hematology analyzers, "ground truth" for parameters like WBC, RBC, HGB, PLT, and differential counts would typically involve:

• Reference methods (e.g., manual differential counts, international reference standards for HGB).
• Correlation with clinically relevant patient outcomes (less likely for a 510(k) for an analyzer).
• Cross-validation with known control materials.

The document only states that "Studies were performed to evaluate the equivalency of the XT-Series to the XE-2100." This implies the predicate device (XE-2100) itself served as a de facto reference or a well-established standard against which the new device was compared.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not provided. This device is not described as using machine learning or AI that would require a separate "training set." It is an automated analyzer based on physical principles like flow cytometry and DC detection (as described in the "Principles" section).

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

This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a training set for an AI/ML model.

Ask a specific question about this device