Search Results

UniCAP Phadiatop Assay is an in vitro qualitative assay for the differential determination of IgE antibodies specific to inhalant allergens in human serum and plasma. UniCAP Phadiatop Assay is to be used with the instrument UniCAP 100. It is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic disorders in conjunction with other findings, and is to be used in clinical laboratories, as well as, physician office laboratories.

UniCAP is a fully integrated and automated system for the determination of total and specific IgE in human serum or plasma. The UniCAP system includes the UniCAP 100 instrument with software for immunodiagnostic testing; UniCAP RM External Software; UniCAP reagents, in this submission reagents for the differential determination of IgE antibodies specific to inhalant allergens.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study used to prove the device meets them:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for UniCAP Phadiatop Assay

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state formal, quantitative acceptance criteria for the UniCAP Phadiatop Assay. Instead, the study's goal was to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device. The performance metric used was agreement with the predicate device on the classification of samples as positive or negative.

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

• Sample Size: 180 serum samples (150 positive, 30 negative).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but it is implied to be clinical human serum samples. The country of origin and whether the data was retrospective or prospective is not mentioned.

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

• The ground truth for the test set was not established by human "experts" in the traditional sense. Instead, the predicate device (Pharmacia CAP System Phadiatop FEIA) was used as the reference standard/ground truth. Therefore, the concept of "number of experts" and their "qualifications" is not directly applicable in this context.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• No adjudication method was mentioned as the reference standard was another device, not human expert interpretation. The comparison was a direct readout between two assay systems.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. The study focused on comparing the new device's performance against a predicate device, not on how human readers' performance would improve with or without AI assistance. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for interpretation.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done in the sense that the UniCAP Phadiatop Assay was evaluated independently against another instrument/reagent system without human intervention in the classification aspect. The study compared the direct output (positive/negative) of the new system to the direct output of the predicate system. The performance of the UniCAP Phadiatop Assay was assessed on its own ability to classify samples compared to the established method.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground Truth: The ground truth was established by a predicate device, specifically the "Pharmacia CAP System Phadiatop FEIA used with Pharmacia CAP System instrumentation." This means the results from the established, legally marketed device were considered the correct classification for comparison.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly mention a separate "training set" or its size. This type of device (in-vitro diagnostic assay) typically undergoes development and validation, but the concept of a "training set" in the machine learning sense is not applicable here. The comparison study describes the testing of the final, developed device.

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

• As a training set is not explicitly mentioned or applicable in the context of this traditional in-vitro diagnostic assay validation, the method for establishing its ground truth is not detailed. The "ground truth" for the comparison study itself was the predicate device's output.

Ask a specific question about this device