Search Results

The Wako IgG II - HA test is an in vitro assay for the quantitative determination of immunoglobulin G in serum. When a sample is mixed with the Buffer solution and Anti-IgG, IgG in the sample combines specifically with anti-human IgG antibody in the Anti-IgG to yield an insoluble aggregate that causes increased turbidity. The degree of turbidity can be measured optically and is proportional to the amount of IgG in the sample.

AI/ML Overview

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the acceptance criteria and study details for the Wako IgG II-HA test:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria / Performance Metric	Predicate Device Comparison	Internal Precision Studies	Minimum Detectable Level
Criteria/Goal	Substantial equivalency demonstrated by strong correlation and regression to predicate.	Acceptable precision studies.	N/A (implied clinical utility requires a certain sensitivity)
Reported Device Performance	Correlation coefficient of 0.997 and regression equation of y = 0.769x - 60.71 with the predicate Wako IgG HA-Direct product.	Precision studies indicate acceptable values can be obtained on a day-to-day basis.	62 mg/dL

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the comparison study or the provenance of the data (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only mentions "comparison studies against the predicate assay."

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

This information is not provided in the document. The ground truth for this type of in vitro diagnostic device is typically established by comparing its measurements to a widely accepted reference method or a legally marketed predicate device, rather than involving expert human readers for interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable as the document describes an in vitro diagnostic assay that generates quantitative results, not a device requiring human interpretation and multi-reader adjudication. The comparison is made between the numerical output of the new device and the predicate device.

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

A MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for imaging devices or AI algorithms that assist human interpretation, not for an in vitro diagnostic assay like the Wako IgG II-HA test, which provides a direct quantitative measurement.

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Performance Study

Yes, the study described is a standalone performance study. The core of the evidence is the direct comparison of the Wako IgG II-HA test's quantitative results against those of the predicate device (Wako IgG HA-Direct product). There is no "human-in-the-loop" component for interpretation in this context.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for establishing the substantial equivalence of the Wako IgG II-HA test is the measurements obtained from a legally marketed predicate device, the Wako IgG HA-Direct product.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a training set size. For an in vitro diagnostic device like this, the "training" (or development and optimization) would typically involve internal validation and optimization of the reagent formulation and assay parameters, rather than a distinct "training set" in the machine learning sense. The comparison study acts more like a validation or test set.

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

Since a "training set" in the machine learning context is not explicitly described, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not provided. The ground truth for the validation against the predicate device would be the results generated by the predicate device itself.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1