Search Results

The VITROS TESTOSTERONE assay is intended for the in vitro quantitative measurement of testosterone in human serum or plasma (EDTA or heparin).

The VITROS Immunodiagnostic System uses luminescence as the signal in the quantitative and semi-quantitative determination of selected analytes in human body fluids, commonly serum, plasma and urine. Coated microwells are used as the solid phase separation system. The system is comprised of three main elements: 1. The VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products (in this case VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products TESTOSTERONE Reagent Pack, VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products TESTOSTERONE Calibrators, which are combined by the VITROS Immunodiagnostic System to perform the VITROS TESTOSTERONE assay). 2. The VITROS Immunodiagnostic System instrumentation, which provides automated use of the immunoassay kits. 3. Common reagents used by the VITROS System in each assay.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products TESTOSTERONE assay, which seeks to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the DPC Coat-A-Count Testosterone assay.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in the typical sense (e.g., minimum sensitivity, specificity, or agreement percentages). Instead, the primary "acceptance criterion" appears to be substantial equivalence to the predicate device, the DPC Coat-A-Count Testosterone assay.

The reported device performance is demonstrated through a statistical correlation:

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

• Sample Size: The text states, "Comparisons of the VITROS TESTOSTERONE assay and the predicate device were performed with samples from a variety of clinical categories." However, the specific sample size (N) used for this comparison is not mentioned in the provided summary.
• Data Provenance: The samples were "patient specimens covering a variety of clinical categories." The country of origin is not specified, and it is described as a comparative study against a predicate device, implying these are real-world patient samples. The information provided does not specify if the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

This information is not provided in the document. For an immunoassay, "ground truth" is typically established by the reference method (in this case, the predicate device) or a gold standard method. The summary doesn't detail how the predicate device's results were established as "ground truth" (e.g., if multiple expert clinical review was involved), nor does it mention any external expert review of the samples used for comparison.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not applicable/provided. For an immunoassay comparison, adjudication would typically not be a factor in the same way it would be for image-based diagnostic or subjective clinical assessments. The comparison relies on the quantitative measurements of the two assays.

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

This is not applicable. The device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for measuring testosterone, not an AI-based imaging or interpretive device that would involve human readers or AI assistance in the way an MRMC study evaluates.

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

This is implicitly a standalone performance evaluation. The VITROS TESTOSTERONE assay is an automated immunoassay system. Its performance (as measured by correlation with the predicate, analytical sensitivity, specificity, etc.) is the performance of the system itself, without direct human intervention in the result generation or interpretation beyond operating the instrument and following its protocol. There isn't an "algorithm" in the typical sense of AI, but rather a chemical and photometric measurement system.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation is the results obtained from the predicate device, DPC Coat-A-Count Testosterone assay (K813401). The study aims to show substantial equivalence to this already approved device. Additional analytical tests like sensitivity, specificity, and precision were also performed against defined standards or reference materials, which would represent their respective ground truths.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not provided and is likely not applicable in the context of this type of immunoassay. Immunoassays are "trained" or developed through extensive laboratory work to establish optimal reagent concentrations, reaction conditions, and calibration curves. They are not "trained" on data sets in the way a machine learning algorithm is. The summary refers to "calibration range" and "calibrators" which are used to set up the assay, but not in the sense of a machine learning training set size.

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

As noted above, a "training set" in the machine learning sense is not applicable. The "ground truth" for establishing the assay's performance and calibration is derived from:

• Reference materials and standards: For analytical sensitivity, specificity, and precision.
• Predicate device measurements: For establishing substantial equivalence using patient samples.
• VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products TESTOSTERONE Calibrators: These are likely standardized materials with known testosterone concentrations used to "train" or calibrate the instrument for accurate measurements within its reportable range. How these calibrator values themselves were established is not detailed but would involve rigorous laboratory methods and reference standards.

Ask a specific question about this device