Search Results

The Alegria Flash CTD Screen kit is a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for the qualitative screening of IgG autoantibodies to SSA-60, SSA-52, SS-B, Jo-1, Scl-70, SmRNP, Sm, dsDNA, Ribosomal P, Nucleosome, and Centromere-B in human serum. The presence of these autoantibodies is intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of the connective tissue diseases (CTD): Sjogren's syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Limited Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis (CREST Syndrome), polymyositis, and dermatomyositis along with other laboratory and clinical findings. The test must be performed on the Alegria Flash instrument.

Not Found

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The ADVIA Centaur Anti-Thyroid Peroxidase II (aTPOII) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of autoantibodies against thyroid peroxidase in human serum and plasma (EDTA and lithium heparin) using the ADVIA Centaur XP system.

Anti-thyroid peroxidase (aTPO) measurements are used, in conjunction with a clinical assessment, as an aid in the diagnosis of autoimmune thyroiditis and/or Graves' disease.

The ADVIA Centaur Anti-Thyroid Peroxidase II (aTPOII) consists of:

• aTPOII ReadyPack® primary reagent pack (Lite Reagent, Solid Phase)
• aTPOII CAL
  Devices sold separately and included in the ADVIA Centaur® Anti-Thyroid Peroxidase II (aTPOII) are:
• ADVIA Centaur aTPOII MCM (MCM 1, MCM 2–4)
• ADVIA Centaur aTPOII QC
• ADVIA Centaur aTPOII DIL ReadyPack ancillary reagent pack

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Immunoglobulin Isotypes (GAM) for the EXENT Analyser:

The Immunoglobulin Isotypes (GAM) for the EXENT Analyser is a MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry immunoassay that is used in conjunction with the Binding Site Optilite IgG, IgA and IgM assays for the semi-quantitative in vitro measurement of monoclonal IgG, IgA, and IgM as a reflex test in serum for patients with a result suggestive of the presence of monoclonal immunoglobulins by serum protein electrophoresis (gel or capillary zone electrophoresis), or with an abnormal serum free light chain concentration and free light chain ratio result.

The assay is intended for use as an aid in the evaluation of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS); and as an aid in the diagnosis of smouldering multiple myeloma (SMM), multiple myeloma (MM), Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia, and AL amyloidosis.

Assay results should be used in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

EXENT Analyser:

The EXENT Analyser is an automated analyser intended for the qualitative and quantitative in vitro measurement of analytes in human body fluids used in conjunction with the EXENT assays. The device is designed for professional in vitro diagnostic use only and it is not a device for self-testing.

The system consisting of the EXENT® Analyser and the EXENT® assays are intended for the in vitro measurements of analytes in human body fluids. It is designed to provide automation and integration of all the analytical steps (including liquid handling and MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry). The EXENT Analyser is designed to be used solely in combination with EXENT assays to measure a variety of analytes depending on the reagents. The device is designed for professional use only and it is not a device for self-testing.

The EXENT Analyser combines automated immunoassay with readout by MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry. It is a modular analyser, and the major components are described in Table 3 and illustrated schematically in Figure 1.

The EXENT-iP500 component is an automated liquid handler that prepares human body fluids using the EXENT assay specific reagents. The samples are prepared using magnetic beads that are coated with isotype-specific antibodies. Any unbound material is washed away during the sample preparation process. The EXENT-iP500 also manages the transfer of the prepared patient sample to the MALDI plate.

The EXENT-iX500 component is a MALDI-ToF mass spectrometer. Signals are produced by ionizing the compound or biological material under investigation and separating the resulting ions by means of an electrical and magnetic field according to their mass-to-charge ratios. The EXENT-iX500 is used to read samples prepared by the EXENT-iP500.

The EXENT-iQ software integrates sample preparation and MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry and is used for data storage and processing. It is the primary user interface used by the user to review and release results.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Elecsys Phospho-Tau (181P) Plasma is an in vitro electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) intended for the measurement of the phosphorylated Tau 181 protein in human plasma on cobas e immunoassay analyzers.

The Elecsys Phospho-Tau (181P) Plasma assay result is intended to be used as an aid in the initial assessment for Alzheimer's disease and other causes of cognitive decline in adult patients aged 55 years and older, presenting with signs, symptoms, or complaints of cognitive decline. The result should be interpreted in conjunction with other clinical information.

A negative test result is consistent with a negative amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scan result and reduced likelihood that a patient's cognitive impairment is due to amyloid pathology. These patients should be investigated for other causes of cognitive decline.

A positive test result may not be consistent with a positive amyloid PET scan result. Patients with an initial positive result should be further investigated to determine whether the amyloid pathology can be a cause of cognitive impairment.

In vitro electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) intended for the measurement of the phosphorylated Tau 181 protein (pTau181p) in human plasma.

Elecsys Phospho-Tau (181P) Plasma utilizes a sandwich test principle and has a total duration time of 18 minutes.

• 1st incubation: 30 µL of sample, biotinylated monoclonal antibody specific for phosphorylation at threonine 181, and a monoclonal tau-specific antibody labeled with a ruthenium complex^a) react to form a sandwich complex.
• 2nd incubation: After addition of streptavidin-coated microparticles, the complex becomes bound to the solid phase via interaction of biotin and streptavidin.
• The reaction mixture is aspirated into the measuring cell where the microparticles are magnetically captured onto the surface of the electrode. Unbound substances are then removed with ProCell II M. Application of a voltage to the electrode then induces chemiluminescent emission which is measured by a photomultiplier.
• Results are determined via a calibration curve which is instrument-specifically generated by 2-point calibration and a master curve provided via the cobas link.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The Alegria Flash ENA Screen kit is a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for the qualitative screening of IgG autoantibodies to Jo-1, SSA-52, SSA-60, SS-B, Scl-70, Sm, or SmRNP in human serum. The presence of these autoantibodies is intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of the connective tissue diseases (CTD) Sjögren's syndrome (SS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Limited Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis (CREST Syndrome), polymyositis, and dermatomyositis along with other laboratory and clinical findings. The test must be performed on the Alegria Flash instrument.

Not Found

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative measurement of thyroglobulin in human serum and plasma (EDTA and lithium heparin) using the Atellica IM Analyzer.

Thyroglobulin measurements are used as an aid in monitoring differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have undergone thyroidectomy with or without radioiodine ablation.

The Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay includes:

• Tg ReadyPack primary reagent pack:
  • Lite Reagent: mouse monoclonal anti-human Tg antibody labeled with acridinium ester (~1.13 μg/mL); bovine serum albumin (BSA); mouse IgG; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (7.5 mL/reagent pack).
  • Solid Phase: streptavidin-coated paramagnetic microparticles preformed with biotinylated mouse monoclonal antihuman Tg antibody (~267 μg/mL); BSA; mouse IgG; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (15.0 mL/reagent pack).
• Ancillary Well Reagent: BSA; bovine gamma globulin; buffer; preservatives (6.0 mL/reagent pack).
• Tg CAL: After reconstitution, human thyroglobulin; BSA; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (2.0 mL/vial).

The following devices are sold separately:

• Atellica IM Tg MCM:
  • MCM 1: After reconstitution, bovine serum albumin (BSA); buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (1.0 mL/vial).
  • MCM 2–5: After reconstitution, various levels of human thyroglobulin; BSA; buffer; stabilizers; preservatives (1.0 mL/vial).

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary for the Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) assay:

Device: Atellica IM Thyroglobulin (Tg) Assay
Purpose: Quantitative measurement of thyroglobulin in human serum and plasma as an aid in monitoring differentiated thyroid cancer patients who have undergone thyroidectomy with or without radioiodine ablation.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document describes various performance characteristics, which serve as acceptance criteria for the device. The reported performance is directly from the summary.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Clinical Performance Test Set Sample Size: 291 serum samples collected from 189 subjects.
• Data Provenance:
  • The document states "A prospective, multi-center study was conducted." This indicates prospective data collection across multiple sites.
  • The country of origin is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
  • All samples were from subjects diagnosed with differentiated thyroid cancer, 6 or more weeks following thyroidectomy or radioiodine ablation.

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

• The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth (structural disease). It simply states: "SD [Structural Disease] was established and classified as either positive or negative by cross-sectional or functional imaging results."
• This suggests that the ground truth was derived from standard clinical imaging reports rather than a consensus of independent expert readers specifically for this study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe an adjudication method for the test set's ground truth (structural disease). It implies that the imaging results themselves provided the classification. This means there was no adjudication process as typically seen with multiple human readers reviewing images.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done.
• This study is for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay (a lab test), not an AI-assisted imaging or diagnostic tool where human readers work with or without AI. The performance metrics presented are for the analytical and clinical performance of the assay itself, comparing its results to a ground truth (structural disease status), not to human reader performance or improvement with AI.

6. If a Standalone Performance Study Was Done

• Yes, this is effectively a standalone (algorithm only) performance study.
• The Atellica IM Tg assay is an automated in vitro diagnostic device. Its performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, precision, linearity, etc.) are evaluated intrinsically, independent of human interpretation of the assay result values. The output is a quantitative measurement of thyroglobulin.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground truth for clinical performance: Structural disease (SD) status obtained from "cross-sectional or functional imaging results."
• Ground truth for analytical performance (LoB, LoD, LoQ, Precision, etc.): Established through laboratory protocols and reference materials (e.g., CLSI guidelines, certified reference materials like BCR CRM 457, spiked samples, control materials).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size for the Atellica IM Tg assay.
• For IVD assays like this, the "training" is typically inherent in the assay's development and optimization process (e.g., reagent formulation, calibration curve development), which uses various known samples and standards, rather than a distinct, labeled "training dataset" as would be seen for a machine learning algorithm. The performance characteristics studies presented are akin to a "verification/validation set."

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

• As a traditional IVD assay, there isn't a "training set" in the sense of a machine learning model.
• Ground truth for assay development and calibration: This would have been established using reference materials (like BCR CRM 457), characterized control samples, and potentially a large panel of clinically characterized patient samples used during the assay's development and optimization phases. These activities are part of the broader product development lifecycle rather than a distinct "training set" with ground truth generated by experts in the context of a clinical study for submission. Standardization is explicitly noted as traceable to BCR CRM 457, which serves as a primary standard for establishing the quantitative accuracy of the assay.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Optilite® Freelite Mx Kappa Free Kit:
The Optilite Freelite Mx Kappa Free Kit is intended for the quantitative in vitro measurement of Kappa free light chains in serum and urine using the Binding Site Optilite analyser. Measurement of free light chains in serum and urine aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia, AL amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); and in serum aids in the evaluation of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Results of the free light chain measurements should always be interpreted in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

Optilite® Freelite Mx Lambda Free Kit:
The Optilite Freelite Mx Lambda Free Kit is intended for the quantitative in vitro measurement of Lambda free light chains in serum and urine using the Binding Site Optilite analyser. Measurement of free light chains in serum and urine aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia, AL amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); and in serum aids in the evaluation of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). Results of the free light chain measurements should always be interpreted in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

The determination of soluble antigen concentration by turbidimetric methods involves the reaction with specific antiserum to form insoluble complexes. When light is passed through the suspension formed a portion of the light is transmitted and focused onto a photodiode by an optical lens system. The amount of transmitted light is indirectly proportional to the specific protein concentration in the test sample. Concentrations are automatically calculated by reference to a calibration curve stored within the instrument.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and its associated 510(k) Summary pertains to the Optilite Freelite Mx Kappa Free Kit and Optilite Freelite Mx Lambda Free Kit. The submission sought to add a claim for the evaluation of Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS) to the intended use statement (in serum).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria, based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission does not explicitly list acceptance criteria in terms of pre-defined numerical thresholds for sensitivity, specificity, or positive/negative rates that were required to be met for the MGUS claim. Instead, it describes clinical performance studies designed to demonstrate the utility of the device for MGUS evaluation. The conclusion states that "The studies generated successful results where all pre-defined acceptance criteria were met," implying these criteria were internal to the manufacturer's study design and not explicitly detailed in the public document as numerical targets.

However, we can infer the de facto "reported device performance" based on the results of Study 1 and Study 2.

Inferred Performance/Results:

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

• Study 1 (Evaluation of MGUS and disease controls at single time points):

  • MGUS Test Set: 229 samples from patients with clinically confirmed MGUS.
  • Disease Control Test Set (non-MGUS): 136 samples from patients with polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia.
  • Provenance: Retrospective study. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the submitter (The Binding Site Ltd) is based in the United Kingdom.

• Study 2 (Evaluation of MGUS progression):

  • Total Patients: 49 MGUS patients.
    • Stable MGUS Cohort: 45 patients.
    • Progressive MGUS Cohort: 4 patients (who progressed from MGUS to MM).
  • Total Samples: 185 samples (up to 4 individual draws for stable, up to 6 for progressive).
  • Provenance: Retrospective study. Country of origin not explicitly stated.

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

• The document states that the clinical diagnostic criteria for MGUS and disease controls were "confirmed with each site" and "as practiced clinically."
• For the progressive MGUS study, changes were defined as clinical progression from MGUS to MM.
• No specific number of experts or their qualifications (e.g., "Radiologist with 10 years of experience") are mentioned in the provided text. The ground truth relies on "clinical diagnosis" or "clinical truth," which typically implies the consensus opinion of treating clinicians or established diagnostic criteria within the medical community (e.g., IMWG guidelines for MGUS/MM).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing the clinical ground truth. It relies on "clinical diagnosis" or "clinical truth" established by the sites providing the samples.

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

• No MRMC study was done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit for quantitative measurement of biomarkers, not an image-based AI device that would typically involve human readers interpreting images. The closest analog would be a clinical utility study comparing outcomes with and without the FLC test, but that is beyond the scope of a 510(k) for an IVD kit unless explicitly requested for a novel claim.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

• This is a standalone study. The Optilite Freelite Mx Kappa and Lambda Free Kits are laboratory assays. The "performance data" presented (positive rates, negative rates, tracking of progression) are derived solely from the measurements made by the device (Optilite Analyser) on patient samples, compared against established clinical diagnoses (ground truth). There is no "human-in-the-loop" aspect to the device's direct measurement and result generation. The results are then interpreted by clinicians in conjunction with other findings, but the device's output itself is standalone.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth used was clinical diagnosis/clinical truth.
  • For Study 1: "clinically confirmed MGUS" and "polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia confirmed by study testing... with supporting clinical information." The diagnostic criteria for MGUS were stated to align with or be similar to those outlined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG).
  • For Study 2: "clinically determined stable or progressive status" for MGUS patients, with progression defined as conversion from MGUS to Multiple Myeloma (MM) based on clinical diagnosis. FLC results criteria adapted from IMWG guidelines were used for evaluation of the device's performance, but the patient's status (stable/progressive) was the "clinical diagnosis."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document states, "The devices in this submission have not materially changed since originally cleared under K150658." This implies that the core analytical performance studies (e.g., analytical measuring range, precision, accuracy) were previously established and referenced from prior 510(k) submissions (K173732 and K150658).
• For the new MGUS claim, the performance data presented are for clinical validation on the test sets described in points 1 and 2.
• The document does not describe a distinct "training set" for the clinical claim of MGUS evaluation, nor is it typical for IVD kits to have a "training set" in the machine learning sense for their clinical claims. The performance studies demonstrate the device's ability to measure FLCs in patient populations relevant to MGUS, and these measures are compared against clinical ground truth. The assay itself (reagents, instrument) would have been "trained" (i.e., optimized and validated analytically) during its initial development and previous clearances.

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

• As a "training set" for the clinical claim is not explicitly mentioned or relevant for this type of IVD 510(k), this question is not directly applicable. For the device itself, analytical validation and calibration would have established its operational parameters, but this isn't "ground truth" in the diagnostic performance sense. The clinical ground truth for the test sets was derived from established clinical diagnoses and diagnostic criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio is an in vitro test using human plasma (K2EDTA) that combines the results of Lumipulse G pTau 217 Plasma and Lumipulse G β-Amyloid 1-42-N Plasma assays into a ratio of pTau 217 to β-Amyloid 1-42 concentrations using the LUMIPULSE G1200 System.

The Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio is intended to aid healthcare providers to identify patients with amyloid pathology associated with Alzheimer's disease.

The Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio is indicated for adult patients, aged 50 years and older, presenting at a specialized care setting with signs and symptoms of cognitive decline.

A test result ≤ 0.00370 is a negative result which is consistent with patients who are unlikely to have amyloid pathology. These patients should be investigated for other causes of cognitive decline.

A test result ≥ 0.00738 is a positive result which is consistent with patients who are likely to have amyloid pathology. This result does not establish a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or other cognitive disorders.

A test result between 0.00371 and 0.00737 is an indeterminate result which is consistent with patients who are uncertain to have amyloid pathology. These patients should be considered for further testing.

The Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio results must be interpreted in conjunction with other patient clinical information.

This test is not intended as a screening or stand-alone diagnostic test.

The Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio is a test that combines the test results of the Lumipulse G pTau 217 Plasma assay and Lumipulse G β-Amyloid 1-42-N Plasma assay from the same patient specimen (K2EDTA plasma sample) into a numerical ratio from 0.00000 – 1.00000. The numerical ratio will be compared to the established cutoffs.

Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio = Lumipulse G pTau 217 Plasma (results in pg/mL) / Lumipulse G β-Amyloid 1-42-N Plasma (results in pg/mL) = a numerical value targeted up to 1.00000.

The Lumipulse G pTau 217 Plasma and Lumipulse G β-Amyloid 1-42-N Plasma are assay systems including a set of immunoassay reagents for the quantitative measurement of pTau 217 and β-amyloid1-42, respectively, in K2EDTA plasma specimens based on chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) technology. The LUMIPULSE G1200 is an instrument platform that can perform automated chemiluminescence immunoassays of specimens using LUMIPULSE G reagents. The LUMIPULSE G1200 reports the results of the two individual assays separately, and the ratio calculation must be done manually by the operator.

This document describes the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets those criteria, based on the provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the Lumipulse G pTau217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio test.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Lumipulse G pTau217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio

The Lumipulse G pTau217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio is an in vitro diagnostic test intended to aid healthcare providers in identifying patients with amyloid pathology associated with Alzheimer's disease. The FDA 510(k) clearance letter details various performance characteristics and clinical study results that demonstrate the device meets its intended use.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The device's performance is primarily evaluated against its ability to classify patients into "Positive," "Indeterminate," and "Negative" categories based on their Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio, correlated with amyloid pathology confirmed by PET imaging or CSF testing.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: 499 patients were included in the pivotal clinical study to evaluate the performance of the Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio.

• Data Provenance: The patient samples were collected from various sources:

  • Polaris-AD (AriBio) patient samples from the screening period of the clinical phase III study of AR1001.
  • Skåne University Hospital Memory Clinic, Malmö, Sweden plasma samples from BioFINDER-2.
  • Bio-Hermes-001 samples from Global Alzheimer's Platform Foundation.
  • University of Wisconsin Plasma samples from subjects enrolled in Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention (WRAP).

  The study included a mix of diagnostic groups: AD dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), subjective cognitive decline (SCD), and other cognitive diagnoses. The data appears to be retrospective, as samples were collected from "screening period," "enrolled in," or "obtained from" existing studies/biobanks. The provenance includes data from Sweden and the United States (Wisconsin), and possibly other countries if the "Global Alzheimer's Platform Foundation" and "Polaris-AD" studies are international.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications of Experts

The clearance letter does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., Radiologist with X years of experience) used to establish the ground truth for the test set. However, the ground truth for amyloid pathology was established by:

• "Amyloid positivity confirmed by historic amyloid PET with an FDA-cleared tracer"
• "or FDA-cleared amyloid CSF ratio"
• For assay cutoff determination, "Subjects' clinical data included signs and symptoms of cognitive decline, amyloid PET with FDA-cleared tracer and/or FDA-cleared amyloid CSF ratio information."

This implies that the ground truth relies on established clinical and imaging standards (FDA-cleared PET and CSF tests), which are interpreted by qualified medical professionals (e.g., Nuclear Medicine Physicians for PET scans, neurologists for clinical data and CSF interpretation), rather than a specific panel of independent experts adjudicating each case for the study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a formal "adjudication method" in the sense of multiple human readers or clinicians arriving at a consensus for the test set's ground truth. Instead, the ground truth was established using objective, FDA-cleared diagnostic modalities: amyloid PET scans and CSF amyloid ratio tests. The results from these cleared modalities inherently define the "amyloid status" used as the reference standard.

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

No Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is an in vitro diagnostic test, not an imaging AI algorithm designed to assist human readers. Its performance is evaluated as a standalone diagnostic aid compared to established amyloid positivity criteria.

6. Standalone Performance

The study primarily evaluates the standalone performance of the Lumipulse G pTau 217/β-Amyloid 1-42 Plasma Ratio in classifying patients' amyloid status. The device itself generates a ratio, and the interpretation rules ("Positive," "Indeterminate," "Negative") are applied to this ratio to determine the test result. The clinical study results (predictive values, frequency of results) directly demonstrate this standalone performance against the PET/CSF ground truth.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used was amyloid pathology status, confirmed by either a positive amyloid PET scan (with an FDA-cleared tracer) and/or a positive amyloid CSF ratio (with an FDA-cleared test). This is a robust and clinically accepted method for determining amyloid pathology.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document explicitly states that the 499 patients in the clinical study (Section C. Clinical Studies) are "distinct from the subjects evaluated in the pivotal clinical validation study" and refers to "banked K2EDTA plasma samples from the following sources" totaling 208 samples for the assay cut-off determination (Section VII.A.vii).

Therefore, the training set (for establishing cut-offs) consisted of 208 samples.

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

For the 208 samples used to determine the assay cut-offs (which can be considered the training set for the cut-off values), the ground truth was established by:

• Subjects' clinical data, including signs and symptoms of cognitive decline.
• Amyloid PET with FDA-cleared tracer and/or FDA-cleared amyloid CSF ratio information.

"Amyloid positivity was derived from either a positive amyloid PET and/or a positive amyloid CSF ratio." This indicates that the ground truth for the cut-off determination was established similarly to the clinical validation set, using a combination of clinical information and established biomarker positivity (PET/CSF).

Ask a specific question about this device

The Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (Ethanol-fixed) test system is an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) for the qualitative and semi-quantitative determination of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) of the IgG isotype in human serum by manual fluorescence microscopy or with dIFine. The presence of ANCA in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings can be used to aid in the diagnosis of ANCA associated vasculitis (AAV). All suggested results obtained with dIFine must be confirmed by a trained operator.

The Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (Formalin-fixed) test system is an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) for the qualitative and semi-quantitative determination of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) of the IgG isotype in human serum by manual fluorescence microscopy or with dIFine. The presence of ANCA in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings can be used to aid in the diagnosis of ANCA associated vasculitis (AAV). All suggested results obtained with dIFine must be confirmed by a trained operator.

Not Found

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for "Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (Ethanol-Fixed)" and "Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies (Formalin-Fixed)" from ZEUS Scientific does not contain the detailed information necessary to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria.

This document is primarily a clearance letter, confirming that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device and outlining regulatory guidelines and requirements. It mentions the "dIFine" system, which likely refers to an automated interpretation component, but it does not provide any specific performance data, study design, or methodology for demonstrating the device's accuracy or effectiveness.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the following information based solely on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not present.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not mentioned.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not mentioned.
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: Not mentioned. The letter states that "All suggested results obtained with dIFine must be confirmed by a trained operator," implying a human-in-the-loop, but no study details are provided.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not mentioned, although the statement about human confirmation suggests the primary use case is not standalone.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not mentioned.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not mentioned.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not mentioned.

To obtain this information, you would typically need to refer to the 510(k) Summary or the full 510(k) submission document, which often includes a detailed description of the validation studies conducted. The clearance letter itself is a summary of the FDA's decision, not the full technical dossier.

Ask a specific question about this device