Search Results

The Varelisa Sm Antibodies EIA kit is designed for the semiquantitative and qualitative determination of SmD antibodies in serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The new device is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using microtiter plates as the solid phase. The plate wells are coated with a synthetic SmD peptide as antigen, which allow anti-SmD antibodies to react with the immobilized antigen (sample). The conjugate is rabbit anti-human IgG horseradish peroxidase (HRP), which uses 3, 3'5, 5' tetramethylbenzidine dihydrochloride (TMB) as substrate. The kit contains a set of six calibrators, positive and negative controls. The kit also contains sample diluent, wash buffer concentrate and stop solution.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for Varelisa® Sm Antibodies, an in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI or medical imaging device. Therefore, many of the requested criteria such as sample size for test and training sets, number of experts, adjudication methods, multi-reader multi-case studies, and standalone performance are not applicable or typically reported in this type of submission.

However, I can extract information related to acceptance criteria and the study performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For in vitro diagnostic devices like the Varelisa® Sm Antibodies, acceptance criteria often revolve around demonstrating comparable performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, agreement) to a legally marketed predicate device. The document states that the new device is a successor to the predicate and that "all available data support that the new device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the new device performs according to state-of-the-art expectations." While specific numerical performance values (e.g., sensitivity/specificity percentages) are not provided in this summary, the outcome of the study (comparability) serves as the "reported device performance."

• results obtained within a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal and negative sera.
• results obtained for clinically defined sera and for international reference sera.
• results obtained for samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)."

"In summary, all available data support that the new device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and that the new device performs according to state-of-the-art expectations." |

Study Details:

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in the provided text. The submission refers to a "data set" that included "positive, equivocal and negative sera," "clinically defined sera and for international reference sera," and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)." However, specific numbers for each group or total are not given.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the manufacturer is "Sweden Diagnostics (Germany) GmbH," suggesting European origin, though international reference sera would be globally sourced. The study appears to be retrospective as it uses collected sera.

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

   • This information is not applicable to this type of in vitro diagnostic device. The "ground truth" for diagnostic kits is typically established by the clinical status of the patient (e.g., diagnosed with SLE or healthy) and/or by established reference methods or reference materials (like international reference sera), not by individual expert consensus on image interpretation.

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

   • Not applicable for this type of in vitro diagnostic device. Adjudication methods are relevant for subjective interpretations, often in imaging, to resolve discrepancies among experts. Clinical diagnoses and reference standards provide objective "ground truth."

4. 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 (laboratory test), not an AI-based system or a device that involves human readers or interpretation of cases in the context of AI assistance.

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

   • Not applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic kit. The device itself performs the assay (detecting antibodies). The "performance" is the assay's ability to correctly identify the presence or absence of antibodies, which then aids a clinician in making a diagnosis. There isn't a "standalone algorithm" in the typical sense of AI. The device is the standalone diagnostic tool (in the context of laboratory analysis).

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

   • The ground truth would be based on:
     • Clinical Diagnosis: For "clinically defined sera," the patient's existing clinical diagnosis of SLE or healthy status would serve as the ground truth.
     • Reference Standards: For "international reference sera," these are standardized biological materials with known characteristics, serving as a form of "ground truth."
     • Predicate Device Results (for comparison study): While not true ground truth, the predicate device's results would be used as a reference point for demonstrating comparability.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable in the context of typical machine learning or AI device development for which this question is usually posed. This device is an immunoassay kit; it is wet-lab developed and validated, not "trained" on a data set in the computational sense.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the computational sense for this type of device. The assay's parameters (e.g., reagent concentrations, incubation times) are optimized through laboratory development, potentially using a different set of samples (often called "development" or "optimization" samples), but these are not "training sets" in the AI context.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device