Search Results

The VALIDATE TDM Calibration Verification Test Set is used by trained laboratory professionals for the quantitative determination of linearity, calibration verification and verification of reportable range in automated, semi-automated, and manual clinical chemistry systems for the following analytes: acetaminophen, amikacin, carbamazepine, digoxin, gentamicin, lidocaine, N-acetylprocainamide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, procainamide, quinidine, salicylate, theophylline, tobramycin, valproic acid, and vancomycin.

VALIDATE TDM Calibration Verification Test Set contains purified chemicals in a human serum matrix. Multiple levels are provided to establish the relationship between theoretical operation and actual performance of each of the included analytes. Each set contains one bottle each of six (6) levels including zero. Each bottle contains 5 milliliters.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "VALIDATE TDM Calibration Verification Test Set." The study presented is a comparison to predicate devices, demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than a study defining acceptance criteria for a new type of device performance.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth, establishment of ground truth for training) are not applicable or not explicitly detailed in the context of this type of submission.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria (implied by the comparison study) and the reported device performance.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Study Details for VALIDATE TDM Calibration Verification Test Set

The device, "VALIDATE TDM Calibration Verification Test Set," is intended for in vitro diagnostic use for quantitatively verifying calibration, validating reportable ranges, and determining linearity for automated and manual chemistry systems for several analytes. The study presented aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, namely "DOCUMENT TDM CAL-VER" and "Human serum spiked with salicylate."

The primary method to establish substantial equivalence is through linear regression analysis, comparing the performance of the VALIDATE TDM Calibration Verification Test Set with the predicate devices. The implicit acceptance criteria are that the correlation coefficients and regression equations for the new device should be comparable to or demonstrate substantial equivalence with the predicate devices.

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

For the purpose of this 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the comparison to predicate devices. A strong correlation coefficient (r-value close to 1) and a regression equation (Y = slope(X) + intercept) that indicates a close relationship between the test set and the predicate are considered evidence of substantial equivalence. While specific numerical thresholds for "acceptance" are not stated, the presented data is offered as proof of meeting this equivalence.

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

• Sample Size: The document states that each analyte was tested in triplicate for the linear regression analysis. The "test set" in this context refers to the measurements taken for each of the six levels provided in the VALIDATE TDM kit (plus potentially the comparable levels in the predicate devices).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, specific lab). The study uses "preproduction lots" of the VALIDATE TDM Calibration Verification Test Set, and compares them to commercially available predicate devices. It is inherent in this type of submission that the data is internal to the manufacturer (Maine Standards Company) or a contract lab.
• Retrospective/Prospective: The study itself is prospective in nature, as it involves testing the new device.

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

Not applicable. "Ground truth" in this context refers to the assigned values of the calibration verification materials. These are established through manufacturing processes (spiking known concentrations into a matrix) and analytical testing, not typically by expert interpretation in the same way, for example, a radiologist might establish ground truth for an image. The "accuracy" of these assigned values is assumed to be part of the quality control for in vitro diagnostic reagents.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. This is not a study involving human interpretation of results requiring adjudication.

5. If a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done

No, this was not an MRMC study. This device is an in vitro diagnostic reagent, not an imaging AI or diagnostic algorithm that would typically involve human readers.

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

This refers to the performance of an IVD reagent in an automated system, which is inherently "standalone" in its analytical function (i.e., the chemical reaction and measurement, not requiring human interpretation of results generation in the way an AI algorithm might). The study tests the performance of the reagent on the "VITROS instrument system."

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for calibration verification materials is the known, theoretical concentration of each analyte at each level. This is established during the manufacturing process by precisely adding known quantities of highly purified analytes to a human serum matrix. The performance of the device is then measured against these expected theoretical values, and its linearity is assessed.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a diagnostic reagent, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. Its performance relies on the biochemical properties and concentrations of its components.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set in the AI/ML context.

Ask a specific question about this device