Search Results

The Focus Technologies West Nile Virus IgM Capture ELISA is intended for qualitatively detecting IgM antibodies to West Nile virus in human serum. In conjunction with the Focus Technologies West Nile Virus ELISA IgG, the test is indicated for testing persons having symptoms of meningioencephalitis, as an aid in the presumptive laboratory diagnosis of West Nile virus infection. Positive results must be confirmed by neutralization test, or by using the current CDC guidelines for diagnosing West Nile encephalitis. This test is not intended for self-testing, and this test is not FDA cleared nor approved for testing blood or plasma donors. Assay performance characteristics have not been established for automated instruments.

Indirect Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for qualitatively detecting human serum IgM antibodies to West Nile virus.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the studies performed for the Focus Technologies West Nile Virus IgM Capture ELISA, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device are not explicitly stated in a quantitative table format (e.g., "sensitivity must be >X%"). Instead, the performance characteristics are presented as observed percentages and 95% confidence intervals from various studies, which are then compared to relevant reference methods. The implicit acceptance criteria are that the device performs comparably or acceptably against established reference methods like the CDC IgM ELISA and Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT) for diagnosing West Nile virus infection.

Table of Acceptance Criteria (Implicit) and Reported Device Performance:

Study Details:

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

   • Study Site 1 (Encephalitis/Meningitis Patients):
     • Test Set Size: 300 patients.
     • Data Provenance: Sera sequentially submitted to a state department of health laboratory in the northeastern U.S.; archived and masked. Likely retrospective, given the archival nature.
   • Study Site 2 (WNV PRNT Positives):
     • Test Set Size: 75 samples.
     • Data Provenance: Samples prescreened positive (by Focus) with a WNV native antigen ELISA and confirmed WNV positive by PRNT. From a clinical laboratory in the mid-western U.S.; archived. Likely retrospective.
   • Study Site 3 (West Nile IFA Negatives):
     • Test Set Size: 103 retrospective samples.
     • Data Provenance: From a clinical laboratory in the southwestern U.S.; retrospective.
   • Study Site 4 (Suspected Encephalitis/Meningitis Patients):
     • Test Set Size: 50 samples.
     • Data Provenance: Archived and masked sera provided by a U.S. federal government laboratory. Likely retrospective.
   • Study Site 4 (Non-Flavivirus Test Samples):
     • Test Set Size: 476 samples.
     • Data Provenance: Prospectively collected from North America during August 2003, submitted to a clinical laboratory in Southern California for non-flavivirus tests. Prospective.
   • Cross-reactivity Study:
     • Test Set Size: 75 samples (various pathogens).
     • Data Provenance: From Study Site 4 (Focus) and Study Site 1 (DOH for SLE positives). Sera were retrospective and masked.
   • Specificity of IgM Capture Wells Study:
     • Test Set Size: 15 sera.
     • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but likely in-house from Focus (Study Site 4) using known WNV IgM and IgG positive samples.
   • Sera Freeze-Thaw Study:
     • Test Set Size: 8 sera (5 positive, 3 negative).
     • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, likely in-house from Focus (Study Site 4).
   • Reproducibility Studies:
     • Inter-lot and Inter/Intra-assay: 5-7 samples in duplicates/triplicates across different lots/days.
     • Inter-laboratory: Samples run in triplicate at 3 different labs on 3 different days.
     • Data Provenance: Focus (Study Site 4), a state department of health laboratory in the northeastern U.S. (Study Site 1), and a clinical laboratory in the mid-western U.S. (Study Site 2).

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

   • The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications. The ground truth was established by reference laboratory assays (e.g., CDC IgM ELISA, WNV PRNT, WNV IgM IFA), which were performed by trained personnel in state department of health or clinical laboratories. The expertise lies in the established protocols and interpretation guidelines of these reference methods rather than individual expert adjudication of each case.

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

   • There was no explicit "adjudication method" in the sense of multiple human readers/experts evaluating the cases. The ground truth was determined by comparing the device's results against established reference laboratory tests (CDC IgM ELISA, WNV PRNT, WNV IgM IFA). The results of these reference tests served as the primary basis for classifying samples as positive or negative. Certain equivocal results from the Focus assay were calculated as positive or negative for performance metric purposes, indicating a predefined rule for handling these, but not human adjudication.

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:

   • No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) ELISA kit, not an AI-powered image analysis tool or a system designed to assist human readers in interpreting complex images. Its output is a quantitative optical density that is used to derive a qualitative (positive, negative, equivocal) result, which is then interpreted by laboratory personnel. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" is not applicable here.

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

   • Yes, this study represents a standalone performance evaluation of the Focus Technologies West Nile Virus IgM Capture ELISA. The device is a laboratory assay (ELISA kit) designed to provide a result directly from a patient sample. Its performance is evaluated intrinsically through its chemical and immunological reactions, and the optical density reading is interpreted by a predefined algorithm/cutoff. Human involvement is in performing the assay and reading the result, but the "performance" itself is that of the assay kit. This is the typical way IVD assays are evaluated.

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

   • The ground truth was primarily established using established reference laboratory tests:
     • Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT): Considered the gold standard for confirming WNV infection.
     • CDC West Nile Virus IgM ELISA: A widely accepted and validated method for detecting WNV IgM antibodies.
     • West Nile IFA (Immunofluorescence Assay): Another method used for WNV IgM antibody detection.
     • Clinical Criteria: For the encephalitis/meningitis patient cohort, a combination of clinical symptoms (fever, altered mental status, CSF pleocytosis) in conjunction with laboratory results defined the diagnosis.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly describe a "training set" for the device in the context of machine learning. For an ELISA kit, development typically involves internal optimization and validation using various samples, but these are not defined as a distinct "training set" like in AI/ML. The performance data presented are from validation/test sets.

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

   • Since a formal "training set" as understood in AI/ML is not described, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable or detailed in this document. The development and internal validation of such an assay would involve using well-characterized samples (often confirmed by gold-standard methods like PRNT or a previously validated ELISA) to optimize reagent concentrations, incubation times, and cutoff values, but this process isn't reported as a "training set" with established ground truth in the same way as for AI models.

Ask a specific question about this device