Search Results

The Access Myoglobin assay is a paramagnetic particle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for the quantitative determination of cardiac Myoglobin levels in human serum and plasma using the Access Immunoassay Systems.
Measurement of myoglobin aids in the rapid diagnosis of heart and renal disease.

The Myoglobin reagents. Myoglobin calibrators, the Access Access Immunoassay Analyzer and the Access 2 Immunoassay Analyzer comprise the Access Immunoassay Systems for the quantitative determination of cardiac Myoglobin in human serum and plasma.

The document provided describes the Access Myoglobin assay. Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Method Comparison: 148 samples were used.
• Dilution Recovery (Linearity): An unspecified number of lithium heparin plasma samples were used.
• Analytical Specificity: "None of the RF samples or the HAMA samples," and "Two heterophile samples."
• Reference Intervals: No specific sample size is given for the population used to establish the reference intervals, but separate limits were computed for LHS and EDTA assays for males and females.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective.

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

• This document describes an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device for quantitative determination of Myoglobin levels. For such devices, "ground truth" is typically established through a reference measurement procedure or comparison to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than through expert human interpretation of images or clinical findings.
• The predicate device used for comparison was the "Access® Myoglobin Beckman Coulter Inc." (510(k) Number: K000196). The performance of this predicate device serves as a benchmark for comparison.
• No human experts were explicitly "establishing ground truth" in the sense of consensus reads for the analytical performance studies.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable as this is an IVD device for quantitative measurement, not a system requiring human interpretation adjudication. Measurements are taken and compared to established analytical performance criteria and a predicate device.

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

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for diagnostic imaging or interpretation systems where human readers are involved. This document describes an automated immunoassay system.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

• Yes, the entire submission describes the standalone performance of the Access Myoglobin assay, which is an algorithm-driven automated immunoassay system. The reported performance metrics (precision, sensitivity, linearity, method comparison, etc.) are all for the algorithm (assay) itself, without human-in-the-loop performance being a variable.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For the analytical performance studies:
  • Method Comparison: The "ground truth" for the new device was established by comparing its measurements against those obtained from the predicate device (Access® Myoglobin Beckman Coulter Inc., K000196). This is a common approach for demonstrating substantial equivalence for IVDs.
  • Other analytical studies (e.g., precision, linearity, sensitivity): Ground truth is inherent in the experimental design, using known concentrations, samples with established values, or statistical methods to define performance characteristics. For instance, for sensitivity, the detection limit is determined against a zero calibrator.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not specify a training set size. For an immunoassay, the "training" analogous to machine learning models often refers to the development and optimization of the assay reagents and protocols. The studies described are typically considered verification and validation studies (test sets) for the finalized assay.

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

• As above, explicit "training set ground truth establishment" in the context of machine learning is not directly applicable here. The development of an immunoassay involves extensive laboratory work to optimize reagent concentrations, reaction conditions, and calibration curves. This optimization process, drawing on many samples and experiments, is analogous to training. The performance of these optimized parameters is then validated through the analytical studies described.

Ask a specific question about this device