Search Results

The TFR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay for quantifying the concentration of transferrin receptor in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia, particularly in the presence of other disease states.

The TFR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay based upon the double antibody sandwich method. Plasma or serum samples are diluted in buffer and pipetted into microwells pre-coated with polyclonal antibody to transferrin receptor. Horseradish peroxidase conjugated antibody specific for serum transferrin receptor (STR) is added to the wells and incubated. During this incubation, the STR binds to the polyclonal antibodies adsorbed to the wells and the HRP-conjugated second antibodies bind to the captured STR. Any unbound STR and excess HRP-conjugate are washed from the wells. Enzyme substrate is added to the wells and allowed to incubate, a stop solution is then added to stop the reaction and the intensity of the yellow product is measured in a microplate reader. The optical density of the resulting solution is directly proportional to the concentration of the STR in the standard samples. A standard curve is generated from the STR standards provided in the assay and the concentration of STR in the unknown sample is determined by comparing the unknown's optical density reading with the standard curve graph.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the TFR assay, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Quantikine IVD sTfR Immunoassay or QSI). The study primarily demonstrates agreement between the TFR assay and the predicate device, as well as agreement with clinical definitions of anemia.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study aspects based on the given information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in numerical thresholds, but rather implied by the comparison to the predicate device and clinical definitions. The 'agreement' percentages serve as the reported device performance against these implied criteria.

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

• Test Set Size:
  • TFR results: 283 total samples (38 IDA, 175 ACD, 70 "Neither IDA nor ACD")
  • QSI results: 155 total samples (23 IDA, 119 ACD, 13 "Neither IDA nor ACD"). This subset of 155 samples had both TFR and QSI results.
• Data Provenance:
  • Origin: Not explicitly stated, but implies human serum or plasma samples. No country of origin is mentioned.
  • Nature: Retrospective. The samples were collected "Over an 18 month period of time," suggesting they were existing samples at the time of the study's design.

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

• The ground truth (clinical definitions of IDA and ACD) was established based on specific laboratory values (Serum Iron, Iron Binding Capacity, Hemoglobin).
• Number of Experts: Not specified. The clinical definitions were provided as existing criteria. It is implied that medical professionals established and utilized these definitions, but no specific number or qualifications are given for any "experts" in the context of the study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• None directly specified. The clinical definitions were used as a direct "ground truth" for classifying samples into IDA, ACD, or "Neither IDA nor ACD." For comparisons between TFR and QSI, direct result comparisons were made, sometimes with the additional filter of ferritin results. This is not an adjudication process as typically understood in clinical trials with multiple human readers.

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, an MRMC study was NOT done. This study is for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not a medical imaging device involving human readers or AI assistance.

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

• Yes, in essence, this is a standalone performance study. The TFR assay is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test that quantitatively measures transferrin receptor concentration. Its performance is evaluated based on its output (concentration values) compared to clinical definitions and the predicate device's output. There is no human-in-the-loop component for the assay's function itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth was established by clinical definitions based on specific laboratory parameters (Serum Iron, Iron Binding Capacity, Hemoglobin) for IDA and ACD. For some comparisons, concurrence with ferritin results (from another test) was also used to refine the population. The predicate device's results (QSI) also served as a comparative "ground truth" for assessing agreement.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable / not mentioned. This document describes a 510(k) submission for a diagnostic assay, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that typically involves a training set. The assay's performance is based on its chemical/enzymatic reactions.

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

• Not applicable / not mentioned. As this is not an AI/ML algorithm, there is no training set in the conventional sense. The assay's "calibration" would be established through the use of standards provided within the assay kit, as mentioned ("A standard curve is generated from the STR standards provided in the assay").

Ask a specific question about this device