Search Results

The Tinaquant Rheumatoid Factor assay is an immunoturbidometric assay for the quantitative determination of rheumatoid factor (antibodies to immunoglobulins) in human serum or plasma using automated clinical chemistry analyzers. Measurement of rheumatoid factor may be used as an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

The Rheumatoid Factor determination is based upon turbidimetric immunoinhibition (TINIA) using a serum or plasma blood sample. The sample containing rheumatoid factor is transferred into a buffer solution (R1 reagent). In the second step, an aliquot of solution containing fine latex particles coated with polyclonal human IgG (anti-human rheumatoid factor antibodies - R2 reagent) is added to mixture of the first step. The antibody-coated particles will bind to the rheumatoid factor in the sample to form "aggregates" such that the amount of aggregate formed is proportionate to the amount of rheumatoid factor present in the sample. The resulting agglutination complex is measured turbidimetrically whereby increased turbidity is reflected through an increase in optical density. Therefore, the amount of rheumatoid factor in the sample is directly proportional to the amount of turbidity formed.

The provided document, K971379, describes the Tina-quant® Rheumatoid Factor Assay, an immunoturbidometric assay for the quantitative determination of rheumatoid factor in human serum or plasma.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Behring Laser Rf Test - Rheumatoid Factor (S) Reagents (K850296), by comparing performance characteristics. This is typical for 510(k) submissions, which aim to show that a new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, rather than establishing de novo clinical utility or fulfilling pre-defined acceptance criteria in the same way a novel high-risk device might.

Here's an analysis based on the structure provided in the request:

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

For a 510(k) submission, "acceptance criteria" are typically implied by demonstrating performance comparable to a predicate device across various metrics. The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria with pass/fail values. Instead, it presents performance characteristics of the Tina-quant® Rheumatoid Factor Assay and compares them directly to the predicate device.

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

• Precision (Intra & Inter-Assay):
  • Intra-Assay: N=21 for each of 3 samples.
  • Inter-Assay: Sample N is not explicitly stated for inter-assay precision, but "Level Sample 1 Sample 2" suggests 2 samples were tested. The "N" value (21, 21, 21) under Intra-Assay likely refers to replicates per run, not separate patient samples in the context of clinical validation.
• Method Comparison: N=35 samples were used for the comparison against the Behring Laser Nephelometer RF.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of an immunoassay, the samples would typically be clinical specimens.

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

The Tina-quant® Rheumatoid Factor Assay is a quantitative in-vitro diagnostic device that measures Rheumatoid Factor levels. Its performance is evaluated through analytical studies (precision, linearity, method comparison, interference), not by human expert interpretation of images or clinical cases that would require expert-established ground truth. Therefore, this section is not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device is the actual concentration of rheumatoid factor, determined by a reference method or known concentrations in control materials.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable, as this device performs quantitative measurements and does not involve human interpretation or adjudication for its analytical performance evaluation.

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

Not applicable. This is an in-vitro diagnostic assay for measuring a biomarker, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device that involves human readers.

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

This refers to the performance of the analytical instrument and reagents (the "device") by itself, without human interpretation for making a diagnostic decision. The entire performance characteristic section (precision, lower detection limit, linearity, method comparison, interfering substances) is essentially a standalone performance study. The device provides a quantitative result (IU/mL) directly.

7. The type of ground truth used

For analytical performance studies:

• Precision: Based on repeated measurements of control materials or patient samples with stable concentrations. The "ground truth" here is the expected mean value of the control or sample.
• Lower Detection Limit: Established through statistical methods using known low-concentration samples or blank samples.
• Linearity: Assessed by analyzing samples with serially diluted or spiked known concentrations across the claimed range, comparing measured values to expected values.
• Method Comparison: The "ground truth" is established by the results obtained from a legally marketed predicate device or a recognized reference method (in this case, the Behring Laser Nephelometer RF).

8. The sample size for the training set

This document does not describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI development. For an in-vitro diagnostic assay, the development and verification typically involve:

• Reagent formulation and optimization: This involves numerous experiments with various reagents and concentrations.
• Assay parameter optimization: Determining optimal reaction conditions for the instrument.
• Validation studies: The studies described in the performance characteristics section (precision, linearity, etc.) serve as the validation of the finalized assay.

Therefore, a specific "training set" sample size as understood in AI/ML is not applicable.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the AI/ML sense for this type of IVD device. The development process relies on established chemical and immunological principles, and the analytical performance is validated against known concentrations or reference methods.

Ask a specific question about this device