Search Results

OnTrak TesTcup and OnTrak TesTstik products, as listed below, are in vitro diagnostics tests On Flax Tes I cup and On Frak Test realitative detection of drugs in urine at or above the stated cutoff concentrations.
OnTrak TesTcup and OnTrak TesTstik products provide only a preliminary analytical test result. On Frax Test cap and On Flair For roler por roler to obtain a confirmed analytical result.

Not Found

This looks like a 510(k) clearance letter for the OnTrak Test Tcup and OnTrak Test Tstik, which are in vitro diagnostics for the qualitative detection of drugs in urine.

Unfortunately, the provided document does not contain the detailed study information required to answer your request in full. The letter itself is a notice of substantial equivalence being granted by the FDA, and it typically refers to a submission that would contain such studies.

Here's what I can infer and what is missing based on the provided text:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: The "Cutoff Concentrations" table (Amphetamines 1000 ng/mL, Morphine 300 ng/mL, etc.) represents the critical threshold for qualitative detection, which implicitly serves as the acceptance criterion for a positive or negative result. A device is expected to correctly identify samples above the cutoff as positive and below as negative (within a certain margin of error and considering cross-reactivity).
• Reported Device Performance: This information is not present in the provided document. A 510(k) submission would typically include sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and potentially cross-reactivity data against these cutoffs.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

• This information is not present in the provided document.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience):

• This information is not present in the provided document. For drug tests, the "ground truth" is typically established by a reference method (e.g., GC/MS or LC/MS) not by human expert interpretation.

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

• This information is not present in the provided document. Adjudication methods are more relevant for subjective interpretations (like medical imaging). For a drug test, the ground truth is analytically determined.

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:

• No. This is an in vitro diagnostic device (a test kit for drugs in urine), not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging tool. MRMC studies are not applicable here. The "reader" is typically a lab technician or user interpreting test lines, not a "human reader" in the AI sense.

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

• This is an in vitro diagnostic device. Its performance is inherent to the chemical reactions and readout mechanism. It doesn't have an "algorithm" in the AI sense. The device is the standalone test. The performance would be "algorithm only" in the sense that the test itself performs the detection.

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

• The ground truth for such drug tests is typically established using a confirmatory analytical method, such as Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) or Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS). The document explicitly states: "OnTrak TesTcup and OnTrak TesTstik products provide only a preliminary analytical test result. For a confirmed analytical result, secondary confirmatory method such as GC/MS must be used." This strongly implies that a confirmatory method like GC/MS was used to establish the ground truth in their studies.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This information is not present in the provided document. As this is not an AI/machine learning device, the concept of a "training set" in that context does not apply. The device's formulation and design would be optimized through R&D, not trained on data.

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

• Not applicable as there is no "training set" in the context of AI/ML. The ground truth for the performance evaluation (test set) is established by a confirmatory analytical method (likely GC/MS or LC/MS) as mentioned in point 7.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory clearance letter and not the scientific study report itself. Therefore, most of the detailed questions about study design, sample sizes, and expert involvement cannot be answered from this text.

Ask a specific question about this device