Search Results

The ZstatFlu® Test for Influenza Type A and B Viruses is an endogenous viral-encoded enzyme assay (EVEA) and is intended for use in the qualitative determination of influenza types A and B from throat swab specimens. The ZstatFlu® Test for Influenza Type A and B Viruses is not intended for the detection of influenza C. This test is indicated for the direct testing of patients presenting with influenza-like illnesses.

The Improved ZstatFlu® Test for Influenza Types A and B Virus is an endogenous viralencoded enzyme assay (EVEA) and is intended for use in the qualitative determination of influenza types A and B from throat swab specimens. The Improved ZstatFlu® Test for Influenza Types A and B Virus is not intended for the detection of influenza C. Influenza types A and B virus possess surface glycoproteins with neuraminidase activity, that hydrolyze substrates which contain alpha-ketosidically linked N-acetyIneuraminic acid (Neu5Ac). A modified Neu5Ac molecule has been synthesized and coupled to a chromogen to produce the neuraminidase substrate. In the presence of influenza types A and B virus the chromogenic substrate is then cleaved by the action of viral neuraminidase, releasing a free chromogen. This free chromogen precipitates to produce a blue color. The blue precipitate is then concentrated and collected from the reaction mixture onto a filter device.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the ZstatFlu® Test for Influenza Types A and B Virus, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined "acceptance criteria" with numerical thresholds for sensitivity and specificity that the device was required to meet. Instead, it reports the observed performance characteristics from the clinical study. The FDA's letter of clearance (K982429) confirms that the device was found substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices, implying that its performance was deemed acceptable for its intended use.

Here are the reported performance characteristics:

Study Details

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

   • Sample Size: 157 throat swab specimens.
   • Data Provenance:
     • Country of Origin: United States.
     • Retrospective or Prospective: The specimens were collected from field sites during the 1995-96 influenza season (November 11, 1995 to March 29, 1996) and then tested. This indicates a prospective collection for the purpose of the study.
     • Collection Sites: Seven separate locations throughout the United States, including physician offices, laboratories, clinics, and hospital settings. Specifically, six physicians and their nurses and technicians from two physician offices in a Southwest region participated in collection and testing.

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

   • The document does not explicitly state the number of individual experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with X years of experience).
   • However, it mentions "the reference method of viral isolation and culture confirmation with monoclonal antibodies" conducted at a "Southwestern viral testing laboratory." This implies that trained laboratory personnel and virologists were involved in establishing the ground truth, but specific numbers and detailed qualifications are not provided.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document does not mention an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) for the interpretation of the reference method results. It simply states the reference method was "viral isolation and culture confirmation with monoclonal antibodies."

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 conducted. This is an in vitro diagnostic device (IVD) for direct detection of viruses, and the study design focuses on comparing the device's performance against a laboratory reference standard, not human reader performance.

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

   • Yes, the performance data presented is for the device in a standalone manner (algorithm only, without human-in-the-loop performance in terms of interpretation, other than operating the test according to instructions). The test is an "endogenous viral-encoded enzyme assay (EVEA)" that produces a visible color change, which is then presumably read and interpreted by the user of the device. The reproducibility studies, however, did assess variations across different users and settings.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • The ground truth used was laboratory reference standard: viral isolation and culture confirmation with monoclonal antibodies.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size. The ZstatFlu® test is described as an "endogenous viral-encoded enzyme assay (EVEA)" based on a chemical reaction, not a machine learning algorithm that typically requires a training set. Manufacturers of such diagnostic kits typically validate the assay's performance characteristics through analytical and clinical studies, rather than "training" an AI model.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no mention of a traditional "training set" for a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device