Search Results

The Omega Laboratories Hair Drug Screening Assay for Methamphetamine (Meth) and 3,4 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is an in vitro diagnostic test that is intended for the qualitative detection of Methamphetamine (calibrated with Methamphetamine) and MDMA (calibrated with MDMA) at or above 500 pg/mg in human head and body hair. To confirm a screen positive result, a more specific alternate chemical method, such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) operating in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode with deuterated internal standards is the preferred method. Professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test result, particularly when presumptive positive results are obtained. This test is intended exclusively for single laboratory use only and is not intended for sale to anyone.

Device Description

The Omega Laboratories Hair Drug Screening Assays for Methamphetamine_3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (Meth_MDMA) is a test system using ELISA reagents and micro-plate reader for the qualitative detection of Methamphetamine and 3,4- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in head and body hair samples at or above 500 pg/mg.

AI/ML Overview

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Omega Laboratories Hair Drug Screening Assay for Methamphetamine (Meth) and 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Acceptance Criteria Category	Specific Criteria	Reported Device Performance
Precision (Intra-assay)	Acceptable, typically %CV of 10% or less for spiked samples.	Methamphetamine: All 11 replicates for 0, 125, 250, 375 pg/mg were negative; all 11 replicates for 625, 750, 875, 1000 pg/mg were positive. (Table 2a) MDMA: All 11 replicates for 0, 125, 250, 375 pg/mg were negative; all 11 replicates for 625, 750, 875, 1000 pg/mg were positive. (Table 2b)
Precision (Inter-assay)	Acceptable, typically %CV of 10% or less for spiked samples.	Methamphetamine: All 220 replicates for 0, 125, 250, 375 pg/mg were negative; all 220 replicates for 625, 750, 875, 1000 pg/mg were positive. (Table 3a) MDMA: All 110 replicates for 0, 125, 250 pg/mg were negative; 14 negative and 96 positive for 375 pg/mg; all 110 replicates for 625, 750, 875, 1000 pg/mg were positive. (Table 3b) Note on MDMA at 375 pg/mg: "due to the 166% cross-reactivity of MDMA."
Precision (Intra-assay, Individual Donor)	Acceptable, typically %CV of 15% or less for individual donor replicates.	Demonstrated as acceptable (specific %CV values for individual donor replicates not provided in tables).
Agreement with GC/MS (Qualitative)	Substantial agreement with GC/MS confirmation for both head and body hair.	Methamphetamine (n=739): 142 Negative by ELISA and GC/MS (negative); 472 Positive by ELISA and GC/MS (high positive). MDMA (n=418): 142 Negative by ELISA and GC/MS (negative); 260 Positive by ELISA and GC/MS (high positive). (Tables 4a, 4b)
Handling Discordant Results	Discordant results should be consistent with the 500 pg/mg cutoff.	Discordant results were observed (e.g., ELISA Positive for Meth at GC/MS 159 pg/mg, 184 pg/mg, etc.; ELISA Negative for Meth at GC/MS 778 pg/mg; ELISA Negative for MDMA at GC/MS 557 pg/mg, 563 pg/mg, 778 pg/mg). The document states, "All Discordant results are consistent with drug cutoff value of 500 pg/mg." This implies potential sensitivity/specificity nuances around the cutoff, confirmed by the note that GC/MS confirmation is performed on all presumptive positive screening results.
Cross-reactivity	Acceptable specificity with structurally similar compounds, and no interference from unrelated compounds.	Numerous structurally similar compounds showed varying degrees of cross-reactivity (Tables 5a, 5b). Unrelated compounds at 10000 ng/ml (400000 pg/mg) generally showed no interference, with the exception of d,l-N-Desmethylvenlafaxine in the MDMA spike at -50% CO for concentrations greater than 7500 ng/mL.
Effect of Interfering Compounds	No false negatives for expected positive results.	No tested non-structurally cross-reactive samples produced a negative result when expected to be positive (Tables 6a, 6b). Structurally related compounds interfered as expected due to cross-reactivity.
Calibrator and Control Stability/Traceability	Validation and stability of solutions, traceability to NIST standards.	Study successfully demonstrated validation and stability of solutions and traceability to NIST standards. 1-year expiration for Calibrator Stock Solution validated.
Sample Stability (Storage)	Mean variation in Meth or MDMA concentrations < 15% (due to 13.6% Uncertainty of Measurement of GC/MS).	Methamphetamine: Mean change 4% (Range: -10% to +26%). MDMA: Mean change 10% (Range: -7% to +31%). Both well within 15%. (Table 8)
Sample Stability (Shipping)	No adverse effect on hair samples when exposed to extreme temperatures and variations in humidity during transport. No discordant screening results.	Extreme temperature (min -12.7°C, max 44.9°C) and humidity (min 4.4%RH, max 100.0%RH) conditions simulated. Of 200 samples, no discordant screening results were found after shipping. (Tables 9, 10).
Cosmetic Treatment Effects	Effects should be minimal or within the uncertainty range of the confirmation assay.	Methamphetamine: Perms (-14%) and Bleaching (-11%) had the greatest average decrease in concentration in positive samples. Dyes (-8%), Relaxers (-8%), and Shampoos (-5%) showed less effect. One negative sample treated with relaxers changed result. MDMA: Bleach (-17%) had the greatest average decrease in concentration in positive samples. Perms (-13%), Relaxers (-12%), Dyes (-8%), and Shampoos (-5%) showed less effect. One negative sample treated with bleach changed result. (Table 11) Most mean changes were within the GC/MS uncertainty range (±12.6%).
Environmental Contamination Mitigation	Methanol wash procedure mitigates false positives and maintains true positives.	Analytically negative samples remained negative after exposure to drugs and methanol wash. Clinically positive samples remained positive after wash steps.

Study Details

Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Agreement Studies:
  - Head Hair: 836 samples (some positive for both Meth and MDMA).
  - Body Hair: 138 samples (69 Methamphetamine, 69 MDMA).
  - Origin: Not explicitly stated, though a "Multi-Center Study" is mentioned elsewhere in the full document that this summary is part of, implying varied geographical input. The phrasing "donor specimens" suggests collected samples. The overall context for drug screening in the US would suggest US-based data.
  - Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but "Results obtained from donor specimens" and "previously determined to be negative/potentially positive" for cosmetic and stability studies suggest retrospective analysis of collected clinical samples.
- Precision Studies (Spiked): 11 replicates per concentration level for intra-assay, 220 replicates (Meth) / 110 replicates (MDMA) per concentration level for inter-assay.
- Stability Study (Storage): 100 head hair samples (50 previously confirmed positive for Meth, 50 for MDMA).
- Shipping Study: 200 head hair samples (49 confirmed Meth positive, 48 confirmed MDMA positive, 100 negative, 3 near cutoff). Tested after shipping to various US locations (Portland, Maine, Anchorage, Alaska, Naples, Florida, Tempe, Arizona).
- Cosmetic Treatment Studies:
  - Study 1 (Methamphetamine): 60 negative head hair, 116 potentially positive head hair.
  - Study 2 (MDMA): 60 negative head hair, 100 potentially positive head hair.
- Cross-reactivity/Interference: Not specified, but likely laboratory-prepared spiked samples using various compounds.
Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience):
- The primary ground truth for confirmation of positive/negative results is Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). GC/MS is an analytical chemical method, not an expert consensus process. The interpretation of GC/MS results is typically done by analytical chemists or toxicologists in a laboratory setting. No specific number or qualification of human experts are mentioned for establishing ground truth from GC/MS.
Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- Not applicable as the primary ground truth is an analytical chemical method (GC/MS) rather than subjective expert interpretation requiring adjudication. For discordant results between the ELISA and GC/MS, the GC/MS result is considered the definitive confirmation.
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. This is an in vitro diagnostic test for drug screening, not an AI or imaging device involving human readers or interpretation of complex medical images.
If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- Yes, the performance studies described (Precision, Agreement, Cross-reactivity, Interference, Stability, Shipping, Cosmetic Treatment, Environmental Contamination) represent the standalone performance of the ELISA assay (the "algorithm" in this context) compared to the definitive GC/MS method. The assay generates a qualitative "positive" or "negative" screen result.
The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
- The primary ground truth is Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), which is an analytical chemical method considered the gold standard for confirming drug presence and quantifying concentration in hair samples.
The sample size for the training set:
- The document implies that the device is a "Hair Drug Screening Assay" using ELISA reagents, which is a mature technology. It's likely that a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI is not directly applicable here. ELISA assays are developed based on known chemical reactions and antibody-antigen binding principles rather than being "trained" on data in the modern AI sense. The development of an ELISA kit involves optimization and validation steps rather than a distinct training phase with a specific dataset size.
How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- As noted above, a "training set" in the AI sense is not applicable. The assay itself is based on established principles of ELISA. The calibrators and controls used in the assay are traced to NIST standards (National Institute of Standards and Technology), ensuring their accuracy and reliability against a known, highly precise chemical standard.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1