Search Results

For in vitro diagnostic use with the IMMULITE® 2000 Analyzer - for the quantitative measurement of allergen-specific IgE in human serum, as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergic disorders.

IMMULITE® 2000 3gAllergy™ Specific IgE is a solid-phase, two-step, chemiluminescent immunoassay that exploits liquid phase kinetics in a bead format. It represents a significant advance over conventional methods relying on allergens attached to a solid-phase support, such as a paper disk. The allergens are covalently bound to a soluble polymer matrix, which in turn is labeled with a ligand. The use of an amino acid co-polymer amplifies the amount of allergen that the matrix can support. Incubation Cycles: 2 × 30 minutes.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document describes several performance criteria for the IMMULITE® 2000 3gAllergy™ Specific IgE Assay, including precision, linearity, and specificity. Clinical performance is also assessed.

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

• Precision Studies: Three positive samples and one negative sample were tested for each allergen lot. The testing involved two aliquots of each test sample in two runs per day on 20 different days, following CLSI document EP5-A2. The exact number of individual measurements can be calculated from these parameters (3 positive samples * 2 aliquots/sample * 2 runs/day * 20 days = 240 measurements for positive samples per lot, plus negative control measurements).
• Linearity Studies: For each allergen, two samples were diluted into 5 levels. These 12 samples (2 original + 10 diluted) were tested.
• Specificity (Inhibition) Studies: A single serum sample or pool of sera was used for each allergen. For each inhibition experiment, 70uL of undiluted and 4 levels of 5-fold serially diluted inhibitor extract were mixed with 250uL of sample or pool.
• Clinical Studies: A total of 1,100 samples were used. This included 288 samples from atopic patients with case histories of suspected clinical reactions to the specific allergen or allergy group, and 812 samples from non-atopic individuals.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). However, the clinical studies describe "samples from non-atopic individuals" and "samples from atopic patients with case histories of suspected clinical reactions to the specific allergen or allergy group," which implies a prospective or at least carefully selected retrospective collection for diagnostic relevance.

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish a "ground truth" for the test set in the traditional sense of image interpretation or complex diagnostic decision-making.

• For the Precision, Linearity, and Specificity (Inhibition) studies, the "ground truth" is based on the inherent biochemical properties of the assay and the measured values, not expert interpretation.
• For the Clinical Studies, "clinical data" was used as the reference. This "clinical data" is described as "clinical documentation of presence or absence of signs, symptoms and other diagnostic evidence of allergen sensitivity" and "case histories of suspected clinical reactions." This implies that the ground truth was established by medical professionals (e.g., allergists, physicians) based on patient history, symptoms, and other diagnostic findings; however, the specific number and qualifications of these experts are not provided in this document.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not applicable. The types of studies described (analytical performance and comparison to clinical documentation) do not involve adjudication methods like those used for expert consensus in medical image analysis.

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 versus without AI assistance:

Not applicable. This document describes an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human readers.

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

Yes, the studies presented are all standalone performance evaluations of the IMMULITE® 2000 3gAllergy™ Specific IgE Assay itself (the "device" being the assay system), without human-in-the-loop interaction for interpretation beyond standard laboratory procedures. The device provides a quantitative measurement of allergen-specific IgE.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Precision, Linearity, Specificity: Ground truth is based on physical and chemical measurement principles and established scientific methods for evaluating assay performance (e.g., known concentrations for linearity, defined inhibition protocols for specificity).
• Clinical Studies: The ground truth used was "clinical data," consisting of "clinical documentation of presence or absence of signs, symptoms and other diagnostic evidence of allergen sensitivity" and "case histories of suspected clinical reactions" to specific allergens. This can be categorized as outcomes data and expert clinical assessment.

8. The sample size for the training set:

The document describes performance evaluation studies and does not refer to a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI development. The studies are for validating the assay's performance against established clinical and analytical benchmarks.

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

Not applicable, as there is no mention of a "training set" in the provided document. The studies focus on analytical validation and clinical concordance of the assay itself.

Ask a specific question about this device