Search Results

The intended use of the device is for the qualitative determination Cryptosporidium antigen in feces. The ELISA test kit is of indicated for use with fecal specimens from patient's with diarrhea aid in the detection of Cryptosporidium gastrointestinal to infection.

The device is an antigen capture enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for use with stools/ fecal material. The antigen capture takes place in microplate wells. During the first incubation, Cryptosporidium antigens present in the stool supernatant are captured by antibodies attached to the test wells. The second incubation adds an additional anti-Cryptosporidium antibody that "sandwiches" the antigen. The next incubation identifies the antibody/ antigen complex and amplifies the signal by the addition of an anti-immunoglobulin antibody conjugated to horse radish peroxidase (HRP). After washings that remove unbound enzyme, a substrate is added which develops a blue color in the presence of the enzyme complex. The stop solution ends the reaction and turns the blue color to yellow. The results may be read spectrophotometrically with a microplate reader or visually.

The TREND Cryptosporidium Direct Detection Test System is an ELISA test kit intended for the qualitative determination of Cryptosporidium antigen in feces from patients with diarrhea to aid in the detection of Cryptosporidium gastrointestinal infection. The study aimed to validate the substantial equivalence of the device to a referenced predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document implicitly defines acceptance criteria through comparison to a predicate device. Substantial equivalence is validated if the performance (sensitivity/specificity) is equivalent.

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

The test set consisted of fecal samples known to be positive or negative for Cryptosporidium parvum by conventional microscopy with modified acid-fast (MAF) staining.

• Study A: 96 samples (26 Microscopy +, 70 Microscopy -)
• Study B: 97 samples (68 Microscopy +, 29 Microscopy -)

The data provenance is stated as "Clinical Laboratory Bench Studies were performed in-house and at two off-site locations, a parasitology reference laboratory with a high incidence of immunocompromised patients and a university research center." This suggests a combination of retrospective (known positive/negative samples) and potentially prospective (samples from the high incidence lab) data, although it's not explicitly detailed as retrospective or prospective. The country of origin is not specified.

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

The ground truth was established by "conventional microscopy with modified acid-fast (MAF) staining." The document does not specify the number of experts who performed these microscopic examinations or their qualifications (e.g., years of experience as a microbiologist or parasitologist).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document doesn't explicitly describe an adjudication method for the ground truth. It simply states that samples were "known to be positive or negative for Cryptosporidium parvum by conventional microscopy with modified acid fast (MAF) staining." This implies a single determination or a standard laboratory process was used without a separate adjudication panel.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The study compares the performance of the device to a predicate device and standard microscopy. It does not measure the improvement of human readers with AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done:

Yes, a standalone study was performed. The performance data presented (Sensitivity and Specificity for Study A and Study B) relate directly to the output of the ELISA test kit (the "algorithm" in this context) without a human-in-the-loop component influencing the primary test result. The results are read spectrophotometrically or visually, but the core performance metrics are for the test system itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The primary ground truth used was expert consensus via conventional microscopy with modified acid-fast (MAF) staining. This is a laboratory-based diagnostic method.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not provide information about a separate training set. The study describes performance testing using clinical laboratory bench studies. For this type of ELISA kit, robust training sets in the AI sense are typically not discussed, as the "training" (calibration, optimization) of the assay components and parameters would be part of the manufacturing and development process, rather than a distinct data-driven training phase after the assay design is fixed for performance testing.

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

Since a training set (in the AI context) is not explicitly mentioned, information on how its ground truth was established is not provided. The development and optimization of such assays would generally involve internal validation against well-characterized samples, but this is distinct from the formal performance testing described.

Ask a specific question about this device