Search Results

REMEL's Xpect™ Giardia/Cryptosporidium kit is an in vitro qualitative immunoassay for the detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium antigens in preserved and unpreserved fecal specimens. This test is intended as an aid in the laboratory diagnosis of suspected Giardia and Cryptosporidium infections.

The Xpect™ Giardia/Cryptosporidium Lateral Flow Assay is a chromatographic immunoassay that detects the presence of Giardia and Cryptosporidium antigens. The test utilizes sample wicking to capture Giardia and Cryptosporidium antigens on discrete test lines containing antigen-specific antibodies for each organism. A specimen is added to a dilution tube containing a buffered solution. A conjugate containing colored micro-particles linked to monoclonal antibodies specific for Giardia and Cryptosporidium is added. The mixture is dispensed into the sample well of the device and wicks across a membrane containing capture antibody stripes. The Giardia/Cryptosporidium immune complexes if present react with anti-Giardia antibody and/or anti-Cryptosporidium antibody at the test line. Conjugates not bound at the test lines are later captured at the control line containing anti-mouse antibody. A blue line will appear at the Giardia test position if Giardia antigen is present and a pink line will appear at the Cryptosporidium test position if Cryptosporidium antigen is present. A line in the Control position indicates that the test is working properly.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Remel Xpect™ Giardia/Cryptosporidium Lateral Flow Assay, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Information

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

• Giardia Test Set Sample Size:
  • Sensitivity/Specificity vs. Microscopy: 577 total specimens (96 positive, 481 negative by microscopy).
  • Percent Agreement vs. Microscopy: 146 specimens (21 positive, 125 negative by microscopy).
• Cryptosporidium Test Set Sample Size:
  • Sensitivity/Specificity vs. Microscopy: 577 total specimens (112 positive, 465 negative by microscopy).
  • Percent Agreement vs. Microscopy: 146 specimens (30 positive, 116 negative by microscopy).
• Data Provenance: The studies were conducted at "six geographically diverse laboratories" for the primary sensitivity/specificity comparison and in a side-by-side comparison with a predicate device. The text does not specify the country of origin but implies a multi-site clinical evaluation. The studies appear to be retrospective as they involve analyzing collected fecal specimens.

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

• The ground truth for the test set was established by microscopy. The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications (e.g., years of experience for the microscopists).

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• The document does not specify an adjudication method for disagreements in establishing the ground truth via microscopy. It is simply stated that performance was "compared to microscopy on a single specimen."

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a lateral flow immunoassay not an AI-assisted diagnostic.

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

• Yes, this device is a standalone test. The Xpect™ Giardia/Cryptosporidium Lateral Flow Assay is a qualitative immunoassay designed to provide a direct result (presence or absence of colored lines) without human interpretation beyond reading the lines.

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

• The ground truth used was microscopy for the detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• The document does not explicitly mention a training set sample size. As a lateral flow immunoassay, the device itself is not "trained" in the same way an AI algorithm would be. The development and optimization of such assays involve laboratory work and validation, but not a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning. The studies described are performance evaluations.

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

• As noted above, there is no explicit "training set" for an AI algorithm. The development of the immunoassay would have involved internal validation and optimization to ensure the antibodies and detection system worked as intended. The ground truth for such development would likely rely on known positive and negative control samples, potentially confirmed by gold standard methods like microscopy or PCR, to select optimal reagents and assay conditions. However, the provided text does not detail these developmental activities or their ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device