Search Results

The Triage® Panel for Drugs of Abuse plus Trycyclic Antidepressants - Oplates 2000 (and other forms of the product) The mage Faller of Drugs of Audie plus Tryoyano of the major metabolites of drugs of also Phencyclidine, Benzodiazepines, Cocain Metabolite, Amphetamines, THC, Opiates, Barbiturates, and Tricyclic Antideoressants in urine,

This test provides only a preliminary test result. A more specific atternate chemical must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas chromatographylmass spectrometry (GCMS) is the preferred Clinical consideration and Other chemical confirmation methods are available. confirmatory method. professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result, particularly when preliminary positive results are used.

The tricyclic test is a qualitative screening test. A negative result does not ellminate the possibility of the presence of tricyclic antidepressants in the urine specimen at concentrations lower than 1000 ng/ml. Should confirmation of the test result for the parent compound or the metabolites be desired, an alternative method that is capable of identification and quantification should be used, e.g. HPLC, GC or GC/MS. A positive screening result may be due to the reactivity of the parent tricyclic antidepressant and the various metabolites of the respective compound.

Not Found

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a device called "Triage® Panel for Drugs of Abuse plus Trycyclic Antidepressants and Opiates 2000" (and related variations). While the document lists the "Indications for Use" and the "cut off concentrations" for various drugs, it primarily focuses on the FDA's substantial equivalence determination and regulatory aspects.

The document does NOT contain information about specific acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment that would typically be reported in a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria.

The section titled "The above products have the screening cut-off concentrations as outlined below:" and the subsequent table define the performance specifications or target concentrations at which the device is expected to detect the drugs. These are not the acceptance criteria for a study proving performance, but rather the operational thresholds of the device.

Without the actual study report, it's impossible to fully answer your request. However, I can infer the acceptance criteria based on the information provided (the cut-off concentrations) and explain what kind of study would typically be done for such a device, and what information would ideally be in a study report.

Inference of Acceptance Criteria and a Hypothetical Study Description:

Based on the nature of the device (a rapid immunoassay for drugs of abuse), the acceptance criteria would typically relate to its ability to correctly identify the presence or absence of drugs at or above the specified cut-off concentrations.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Hypothetical):

Since the document only provides the target cut-off concentrations, the acceptance criteria would likely be defined around sensitivity and specificity at these concentrations.

Note: The actual acceptance criteria might also include parameters like agreement within a certain percentage of the cut-off, or detection within a certain analytical range.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size for the test set. For a multi-analyte immunoassay, studies typically involve hundreds to thousands of samples, often stratified to include concentrations near the cut-off, well above the cut-off, and negative samples, as well as samples with potential cross-reactants.
• Data Provenance: Not specified in the document. For such devices, clinical samples from various populations (e.g., diverse demographics, different geographic locations to capture varying drug use patterns) would be ideal. Whether retrospective or prospective is also not mentioned. Prospective collection would be preferred for avoiding bias.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: For drug of abuse testing, "experts" in the context of ground truth would typically refer to the highly trained laboratory personnel performing the gold standard confirmatory tests, not necessarily clinical experts. The ground truth method (GC/MS) is intrinsically the "expert" here.

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

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. For analytical studies, a formal adjudication process like 2+1/3+1 is usually not directly applicable. The "adjudication" is inherent in the confirmatory method's results. If multiple runs of the confirmatory method were done, then a consensus approach might be employed, but it's not medical 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:

• MRMC Study: This device is a diagnostic test kit for drugs of abuse. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device. The "reader" is typically a laboratory technician interpreting a color change or a machine reading it.

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

• Standalone Performance: Yes, the fundamental performance evaluation of such a device is its standalone performance. The document implies this through the cut-off concentrations. The device itself (the panel) yields a result based on chemical reactions. The "algorithm" here is the chemical reactivity. Its performance is measured against confirmatory methods (GC/MS).

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

• Ground Truth Type: As explicitly stated in the document: "A more specific alternate chemical must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCMS) is the preferred confirmatory method. Other chemical confirmation methods are available."
  • Therefore, the ground truth is established by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) or other validated chemical confirmation methods. This is the gold standard for drug detection and quantification in urine.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Sample Size for Training Set: The document makes no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. For an immunoassay, the "training" phase involves optimizing the assay reagents and conditions during development to achieve the desired sensitivity, specificity, and cut-off levels. This isn't typically quantified as a distinct "training set size" in the same way as an AI model.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable in the AI sense. During the development and optimization of the immunoassay, various spiked and clinical samples would be tested, and their true concentrations (ground truth) would be established using a similar, highly accurate analytical method like GC/MS to guide the optimization of the immunoassay's performance characteristics.

Ask a specific question about this device