Search Results

The Measurement of the Total Amount of Binding Sites Available for the Thyroid Hormones in Human Serum or Plasma by a Microplate Enzyme Immunossay. Measurements obtained from this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid diseases.

The Monobind microplate EIA utilizes limited amount of anti-thyroxine antibody coated on the surface of plastic wells of a microtiter plate. Specimens, calibrators or controls are then added followed by the enzyme-T4 conjugate and thyroxine. The amount of enzyme only gets to the specimen increases. After the completion of the incubation period, the enzyme-T4 conjugate on the well is quantitated by reaction with suitable substrate. The activity of the enzyme is inversely proportional to the amount of unsaturated thyroid hormone binding sites in the specimen. The employment of several serum references of known unsaturated thyroid hormone binding capacity permits construction of a graph of absorbance and concentration. From comparison to the dose response curve, an unknown specimen's absorbance can be correlated with thyroid hormone binding capacity.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract information about the acceptance criteria and study for the Monobind T-Uptake Microplate EIA device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner (e.g., "sensitivity must be >X%, specificity >Y%"). Instead, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalency" to a predicate device. The primary performance metric reported to support this equivalency is related to method agreement.

• Sample Size: 120 specimens
• Specimen Types: Hypothyroid, pregnant, euthyroid, and hyperthyroid populations.
• Mean Values:
  • Reference method (radioassay): 29.0
  • This method (microplate EIA): 29.3
• Linear Regression Equation: y = 1.56 + 0.96x
• Correlation Coefficient: 0.972
  Conclusion: These results "indicate good method agreement," suggesting substantial equivalency. |

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 120 specimens.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The data is described as "clinical comparison" using specimens from different patient populations, suggesting it is retrospective or prospective clinical data collected for the purpose of this comparison. It is not stated as simulated data.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The ground truth for the test set is established by the predicate device (Monobind T3 Uptake radioassay), not by human experts adjudicating results.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the ground truth for the test set was established by the predicate device's measurements, not by human expert adjudication.

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 is not applicable. The device is an immunoassay (laboratory test), not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance would not be relevant.

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

Yes, the study presented is a standalone performance study for the Monobind T-Uptake Microplate EIA. The device itself performs the measurement, and its results are compared directly to those of the predicate device. There is no human-in-the-loop aspect described for the performance evaluation of the device output itself, though human involvement is required for specimen collection, assay performance, and result interpretation in a clinical setting.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for performance evaluation (specifically, establishing substantial equivalence) was the measurements obtained from a legally marketed predicate device (Monobind T3 Uptake radioassay). This serves as the "reference method" against which the new device's performance is compared.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a separate "training set". For immunoassay development, reference materials, calibrators, and perhaps internal development studies would be used during the R&D phase to optimize the assay. However, the provided text describes the validation/clinical comparison study for regulatory submission, which is analogous to a test set in the context of demonstrating performance for regulatory approval.

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

As no specific "training set" is disclosed in the provided document, the method for establishing its ground truth is not available. However, typically for an immunoassay, the "ground truth" for developing and optimizing calibrators and controls (which might be considered analogous to training data in some contexts) would be based on established analytical methods, certified reference materials, or clinical samples with known characteristics, often determined by reference laboratories or established predicate methods.

Ask a specific question about this device