Search Results

The Wielisa ANCA Screening Test Kit is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of antibodies to Proteinase-3 (PR-3) and Myeloperoxidase (MPO) in human sera. The assay is used to detect antibodies in a single serum specimen. The results of the assay are to be used as an aid to the diagnosis of systemic vasculitis, especially Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) and microcopic polyangiitis (MP). The assay is intended for use in patients with signs and symptoms consistent with systemic vasculitis. It is not intended for screening a healthy population. A positive result should always be confirmed by a semi-quantitative assay.

The Wielisa ANCA Screening Test Kit is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of antibodies to Proteinase-3 (PR-3) and Myeloperoxidase (MPO) in human sera. The assay is used to detect antibodies in a single serum specimen. The results of the assay are to be used as an aid to the diagnosis of systemic vasculitis, especially Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) and microcopic polyangiitis (MP). The assay is intended for use in patients with signs and symptoms consistent with systemic vasculitis. It is not intended for screening a healthy population. A positive result should always be confirmed by a semi-quantitative assay.

The wells of the microtiter strips are coated with purified (Human Neutrophil source) proteinase 3, and MPO (Human Neutrophil source) antigen. During the first incubation, specific antibodies in diluted serum, will bind to the antigen coating.

The wells are then washed to remove unbound antibodies and other components. A conjugate of alkaline phosphatase-labeled (Goat) antibodies to human IgG binds to the antibodies in the wells in this second incubation.

After a further washing step, detection of specific antibodies is obtained by incubation with substrate solution. The amount of bound antibodies correlates to the color intensity and is measured in terms of absorbance (optical density (OD)). The absorbance is then calculated and the results are given as a ratio to the negative control.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study detailed in the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of numerical thresholds for sensitivity or specificity. However, it presents the results of a comparative study against clinical characterization and a predicate semi-quantitative ELISA. We can infer the performance targets based on the documented predicate device equivalence. For the purpose of this response, I'll interpret the "acceptance criteria" as meeting or exceeding the performance of the predicate devices or demonstrating high clinical validity.

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

• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study (Table 1):
  • Sample Size: A total of 288 sera.
  • Data Provenance: Frozen retrospective sera with clinical characterization. The country of origin is not specified, but the manufacturer is based in Sweden.
• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study (Table 2):
  • Sample Size: A total of 216 frozen retrospective sera.
  • Data Provenance: Frozen retrospective sera. The country of origin is not specified.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their qualifications. For the "Clinical sensitivity and specificity" study (Table 1), the ground truth is based on "clinical characterisation." For the "Relative sensitivity and specificity" study (Table 2), the ground truth is established by a "semi-quantitative ELISA," which implies a laboratory-based gold standard. There is no mention of expert review in either case for establishing ground truth, beyond the initial clinical diagnoses.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any adjudication method involving human experts for the test set results. The ground truths are either based on clinical diagnoses or the results of a predicate semi-quantitative ELISA.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance was not done. This device is an ELISA test kit, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool that assists human interpretation.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, the device performance presented is for the standalone "algorithm" (the ELISA test kit itself). The results for sensitivity, specificity, and precision metrics are reported for the kit's performance independent of human-in-the-loop interpretation beyond standard laboratory procedures for operating an ELISA test.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study (Table 1): Clinical diagnoses/characterization (e.g., diagnosed with Wegener's granulomatosis (WG), microscopic polyangiitis (MP), Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), or healthy blood donors (NS)).
• Relative Sensitivity and Specificity Study (Table 2): Results from a "semi-quantitative ELISA" (the predicate devices, Wielisa PR-3 ANCA ELISA Kit and Wielisa MPO ANCA ELISA Kit).
• Precision Studies (Table 3, 4, 5): The ground truth for these studies is the inherent signal/value of the control samples used to assess reproducibility.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. As this is an ELISA test kit, not an AI software, the concept of a training set for an algorithm is not applicable in the conventional sense. The studies described are performance validation studies.

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

As noted in point 8, the concept of a "training set" for an AI algorithm is not applicable here. The establishment of ground truth for the validation studies is described in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device