Search Results

The Access Ostase assay is a paramagnetic particle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for use with the Access Immunoassay Systems for the quantitative measurement of bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), an indicator of osteoblastic activity, in human serum and plasma. This device is intended to be used as an aid in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease.

The Access Ostase assay is a one-step sandwich immunoenzymatic assay. The Access Ostase assay consists of the reagent pack, calibrators and QCs. Other items needed to run the assay include substrate and wash buffer. The Access Ostase assay reagent pack, Access Ostase assay calibrators, Access Ostase QCs, along with the UniCel Dxl Wash Buffer II are designed for use with the Dxl 9000 Access Immunoassay Analyzer in a clinical laboratory setting.

The provided text describes the performance of the Beckman Coulter Access Ostase assay on the Dxl 9000 Access Immunoassay Analyzer, comparing it to the predicate device (Access Ostase on Access 2 Immunoassay System).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the studies performed, structured as requested:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for each performance characteristic in a separate, clear table format. However, it does outline the assay's design goals for imprecision and then presents the results. For other parameters like linearity and detection limits, it states the claimed values or that linearity was demonstrated. I will infer the acceptance criteria for imprecision from the "designed to have" statement and present the reported performance.

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

• Method Comparison Test Set:

  • Sample Size: 163
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). However, the study involved comparing results from two different immunoassay systems (Access 2 and Dxl 9000) using patient samples, implying real-world or simulated clinical samples.

• Imprecision Test Set:

  • Sample Size: 80 for each of the 5 samples tested (total of 400 individual measurements of samples).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The study involved testing "multiple samples in duplicate in 2 runs per day for a minimum of 20 days," which suggests a controlled laboratory setting.

• Linearity, LoB, LoD, LoQ: The sample sizes for these studies are not explicitly mentioned, nor is their specific provenance beyond being performed "on the Dxl 9000 Access Immunoassay Analyzer."

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

This information is not applicable to an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay that measures quantitative analytes like bone alkaline phosphatase. The "ground truth" for such devices is typically established through reference methods, certified reference materials, or statistical comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (as done here). There are no "experts" in the human perception or diagnostic interpretation sense used to establish ground truth for this type of test.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology reads) where discrepancies between experts need to be resolved to establish ground truth. This is a quantitative immunoassay.

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 applicable. This device is an in vitro diagnostic immunoassay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. No MRMC study was performed.

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

This device is an automated immunoassay system that provides quantitative results. The performance studies described (Method Comparison, Imprecision, Linearity, LoB/LoD/LoQ) inherently represent the standalone performance of the device (including its reagents and analyzer software) in generating these quantitative results. It operates without direct human-in-the-loop interpretation of the primary measurement signal for the reported value. A human reviews the final numerical result, but the device itself generates that result primarily through an automated process.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Method Comparison: The ground truth was established by comparison to the predicate device (Access Ostase on Access 2 Immunoassay System). This assumes the predicate device's measurements represent a valid "truth" for substantial equivalence purposes. Patient samples were used, and their values from one system were compared to the other.
• Imprecision: The ground truth for evaluating imprecision is the inherent variability of the measurement process itself, determined by repeated measurements of samples with known (or established) concentrations.
• Linearity, LoB, LoD, LoQ: These are determined using samples of known concentrations (dilutions, blank samples, low-concentration samples) and statistical methods based on CLSI guidelines.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This device is a quantitative immunoassay system, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The development of such assays involves extensive research, development, and optimization of reagents and protocols, but this is distinct from "training data" for an algorithm.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IDS-iSYS Ostase® BAP assay is an in vitro diagnostic device intended for the quantitative determination of bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP), an indicator of osteoblastic activity, in human serum on the IDS system. Results are to be used in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory data to aid the clinician in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease.

The IDS-iSYS Ostase® BAP assay consists of one reagent cartridge and one set of calibrators (CAL A & CAL B).

The reagent cartridge contains multiple reagents:

• MPM1 (Magnetic particles coated with streptavidin in a phosphate buffer with sodium azide as preservative);
• Ab-BIOT Monoclonal anti-BAP labelled with biotin, in buffer containing horse serum with bovine and mouse proteins and sodium azide as a preservative (

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for a medical device called "IDS-iSYS Ostase® BAP." This document is primarily concerned with demonstrating the substantial equivalence of the new device to a predicate device, rather than focusing on the acceptance criteria and study proving performance for an AI/ML-based medical device.

Therefore, the requested information regarding AI/ML-specific acceptance criteria and validation studies (like sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) is not present in this document because it describes an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test for quantitative determination of bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, not an AI/ML-driven imaging or diagnostic algorithm.

However, I can extract the relevant performance characteristics that are analogous to "acceptance criteria" for this type of IVD device and the study data proving it meets those.

Device Description

The IDS-iSYS Ostase® BAP assay is an in vitro diagnostic device intended for the quantitative determination of bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP), an indicator of osteoblastic activity, in human serum on the IDS system. Results are to be used in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory data to aid the clinician in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (Performance Characteristics) and Reported Device Performance

For an in vitro diagnostic device, "acceptance criteria" are typically defined by various analytical performance characteristics that demonstrate the device's accuracy, precision, and reliability for its intended use. While explicit acceptance ranges are not always presented as a separate "criteria" table in a 510(k), the studies conducted implicitly aim to demonstrate performance within acceptable ranges for IVDs. The comparison to the predicate device and adherence to CLSI guidelines are key for demonstrating substantial equivalence.

Here's a table summarizing the analytical performance characteristics and the reported device performance, which serve as the "proof" that the device meets the implied acceptance criteria for an IVD:

• Predicate Within Run: 2.6% to 6.5% (7.4 to 79.5 μg/L)
• Predicate Between Run: 2% to 6.4% (8.4 to 81.1 µg/L) | Repeatability (Within Run):
  From 1.7% to 2.8% in the concentration range 6.2 to 59.8 µg/L (N=80 data points for each sample, for one representative lot).
  From 1.7% to 2.8% for combined 3 lots across samples 1-10 (6.2-59.8 μg/L).
  Within Laboratory (Between Run/Total Precision):
  From 3.0% to 7.6% in the concentration range 6.2 to 59.8 µg/L (N=80 data points for each sample, for one representative lot).
  From 3.0% to 7.2% for combined 3 lots across samples 1-10 (6.2-59.8 μg/L).
  Overall, shows robust precision comparable or improved relative to the predicate. |
  | Linearity / Reportable Range | The assay should demonstrate linearity across its claimed measuring range. Expected a high correlation coefficient (R²) close to 1.0.
• Predicate Range: 0.7 – 90 µg/L. | Linear Range: 0.9 to 78.5 µg/L.
  Measuring (Reportable) Range: 3 to 70 µg/L.
  Regression: Observed = 0.98 x (Expected) - 0.9 ng/mL.
  Regression coefficient R²: 1.00.
  The high R² demonstrates excellent linearity across the range. |
  | Detection Limits (LoB, LoD, LoQ) | Low values for LoB (Limit of Blank), LoD (Limit of Detection), and LoQ (Limit of Quantitation) are desirable to demonstrate the ability to detect very low concentrations of the analyte.
• Predicate: LoD 0.7 µg/L. Other values N/A. | LoB (Limit of Blank): 0.3 µg/L
  LoD (Limit of Detection): 0.4 µg/L
  LoQ (Limit of Quantitation): 0.5 µg/L
  Demonstrates improved or comparable sensitivity to the predicate. |
  | Analytical Specificity (Interference) | Bias due to common interfering substances should be non-significant, typically defined as

Ask a specific question about this device

Orion Diagnostica UniQ™ PINP RIA is a quantitative radioimmunoassay designed for the measurement of intact aminoterminal propeptide of type I procollagen, an indicator of osteoblastic activity, in human serum. The test is intended to be used an aid in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. For in vitro diagnostic use.

Not Found

The provided text is related to an FDA 510(k) clearance for a diagnostic device, the Orion Diagnostica UniQ™ PINP RIA. However, it does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, specific study details (sample size, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods), MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details.

The document is a clearance letter and an "Indications for Use" statement. It confirms that the device has been found substantially equivalent to a predicate device but does not present the data from the studies that led to this determination.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based on the given input.

Ask a specific question about this device

The test system will be used in laboratories to separate serum ALP isoenzymes. Elevated bone isoenzyme can be found in conditions of physiologic bone growth, metastatic carcinoma and as rickets. Increased liver isoenzyme values can be seen in hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver. Intestinal isoenzymes can be seen in patients with intestinal disease in particular after a meal. Intestinal Isoenzymes occur in blood type O or B after a meal.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the SPIFE 2000/3000 ALP device. It does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria.

The letter states that the FDA has determined the device to be substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. This determination is based on a comparison to existing devices, not on a new study providing specific performance metrics against pre-defined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text. The document is primarily an administrative letter confirming regulatory clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Beckman Coulter, Inc's Access Ostase Assay is a paramagnetic particle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for use with the Access Immunoassay System for the quantitative measurement of bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), an indicator of osteoblastic activity, in human serum and plasma. This device is intended to be used as an aid in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease.

The Access Ostase Assay is a paramagnetic particle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for use with the Access Immunoassay System for the quantitative measurement of bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), an indicator of osteoblastic activity, in human serum and plasma.

{
  "acceptance_criteria_and_device_performance": {
    "title": "Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance for Access® Ostase® Assay",
    "table": {
      "headers": ["Performance Characteristic", "Acceptance Criteria (Implicit via predicate comparison)", "Reported Device Performance"],
      "rows": [
        ["Method Comparison (Slope vs. Predicate)", "Close to 1", "0.9756"],
        ["Method Comparison (Intercept vs. Predicate)", "Close to 0", "-0.5987"],
        ["Method Comparison (Correlation r vs. Predicate)", "Close to 1", "0.9895"],
        ["Mean % Difference (Osteoporosis vs. Predicate)", "Low Percentage Difference", "-5.96%"],
        ["Mean % Difference (Paget's vs. Predicate)", "Low Percentage Difference", "-7.01%"],
        ["Between-Run %CV (Imprecision)", "Low Percentage (e.g.,

Ask a specific question about this device

Measurement of BAP is intended for use as an aid in the:

management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease.

monitoring of postmenopausal women on hormonal or bisphosphonate therapy

prediction of skeletal response to hormonal therapy in postmenopausal women.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) letter for the Alkphase-B® Assay Kit does not contain information about the acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment. The document is an FDA letter granting substantial equivalence, not a detailed study report. Therefore, I cannot generate the requested table and paragraphs based on this input.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Tandem-MP Ostase Immunoenzymetric Assay is an in vitro device indicated for the quantitative measurement of skeletal alkaline phosphatase (sALP), an indicator of osteoblastic activity, in human serum. This device is intended to be used as an aid in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease.

Tandem-MP Ostase is an in vitro device for the quantitative measurement of skeletal alkaline phosphatase (sALP) in human serum. The assay is a solid-phase, immunoenzymetric assay. Serum samples containing sALP are reacted in a microwell with the biotinylated capture antibody. Following binding of the biotinylated antibody/antigen complex to the streptavidin coated wells, the microwells are washed and incubated with an enzyme substrate. The captured sALP enzyme turns over the substrate and the amount of sALP bound to the microwell is determined colorimetrically by measuring the absorbance of the quenched reaction at 405 nm in a microplate reader. The calculation of the sALP concentration in the sample is based on concurrent testing of the Ostase Calibrators and Zero/Diluent.

The provided text describes the Tandem-MP Ostase Assay, an in vitro device for measuring skeletal alkaline phosphatase (sALP). However, it is a 510(k) premarket notification and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Tandem-R Ostase Immunoradiometric Assay, K961573) rather than a study providing acceptance criteria and performance data in the typical sense of a new device validation.

Therefore, many of your requested points cannot be directly extracted from this document, as it's not a performance study report for a novel AI device. This document is a regulatory filing for a laboratory assay.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the given text. A 510(k) submission primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily on presenting new, specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics for the new device in isolation. The document states that the Tandem-MP Ostase Assay "is substantially equivalent" to the predicate, implying its performance should be comparable.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not provided. The text mentions "human serum" as the specimen matrix, but no details about sample size, origin, or study design (retrospective/prospective) are given.

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

This information is not provided. This concept (experts establishing ground truth) is more relevant for diagnostic imaging AI studies or studies where subjective interpretation is foundational. For an in vitro diagnostic assay, "ground truth" would typically refer to a gold standard measurement or clinically established normal/abnormal ranges, not expert consensus interpretation.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not provided. Adjudication methods are typically used in studies where multiple human readers are evaluating data, often for diagnostic imaging, and is not relevant to this type of in vitro diagnostic assay submission.

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

This information is not provided. This is an in vitro diagnostic assay, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging system that would involve human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not applicable here.

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

This information is not explicitly detailed in the way it would be for an AI algorithm. The Tandem-MP Ostase Assay is an immunoenzymetric assay, which is a laboratory test. Its performance is inherent in its chemical and biological reactions and subsequent colorimetric measurement, not in an "algorithm" in the AI sense. The entire assay itself is "standalone" in that it produces a quantitative result from a serum sample without human interpretive assistance for the result itself.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

For an in vitro diagnostic assay like this, "ground truth" would typically refer to:

• Reference Method/Predicate Device Comparison: The text implies comparison to the predicate device (Tandem-R Ostase Immunoradiometric Assay) is the basis for demonstrating equivalence in performance. This predicate device would serve as a de-facto "ground truth" for showing the new device measures the same analyte accurately.
• Clinical Correlation: The device is used as an aid in managing postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease. The ultimate "ground truth" for clinical utility would be disease progression, response to treatment, or bone mineral density measurements, but the device itself directly measures sALP, which is an indicator of osteoblastic activity. The document doesn't detail how the correlation with clinical outcomes was established for this specific device (Tandem-MP Ostase), but it relies on the predicate's established clinical utility.

Specific details about how "ground truth" was established for testing the new device are not explicitly provided beyond the substantial equivalence claim.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. As an in vitro diagnostic assay, it doesn't typically have a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The development and optimization of such assays involve reagent formulation, antibody selection, and protocol refinement, which are different from supervised learning with a data set.

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

This information is not applicable as there is no "training set" in the AI/machine learning sense for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

OPUS Bone ALP is an in vitro fluorogenic enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) for the quantitative measurement of bone alkaline phosphatase (bone ALP) in human serum as an aid in the management of patients with diagnosed Paget's disease. OPUS Bone ALP is intended for use with the OPUS analyzers.

OPUS Bone ALP is a set of reagents intended to be used together with the OPUS immunoassay analyzers for the quantitative measurement of bone alkaline phosphatase (bone ALP) in human serum.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Behring Diagnostics Inc. OPUS® Bone ALP 510(k) Notification, focusing on acceptance criteria and study details:

Executive Summary:

The provided document describes a 510(k) notification for the OPUS® Bone ALP assay, a fluorogenic enzyme immunoassay for the quantitative measurement of bone alkaline phosphatase (bone ALP) in human serum, intended as an aid in the management of patients with diagnosed Paget's disease. The study provided focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a legally marketed device (Hybritech Tandem-R Ostase) through performance characteristics like precision, recovery, and correlation with the predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for each metric. The "implied" criteria are based on standard expectations for diagnostic immunoassay performance for 510(k) submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence. The reported performance values fall within generally accepted ranges for such assays.

Detailed Study Information:

The provided document focuses on analytical performance studies for substantial equivalence. It does not describe a study related to clinical acceptance criteria in the sense of a diagnostic outcome (e.g., sensitivity, specificity for disease detection/management). The "acceptance criteria" here refer to analytical performance.

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

• Test Set (Accuracy by Correlation): 50 serum samples
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or if the data was retrospective or prospective. It implies the data was collected for the purpose of the 510(k) submission.

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

Not applicable. For this type of analytical performance study (especially correlation against a predicate device), "ground truth" as established by expert consensus is not typically used. The accuracy is determined by comparison to an existing, legally marketed device of the same intended use.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As noted above, this study is an analytical performance comparison, not a clinical study requiring adjudication of diagnostic outcomes.

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 applicable. This is an immunoassay, not an imaging device or AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human readers or MRMC studies.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, in a way. The performance data presented (precision, recovery, and correlation) represents the standalone performance of the OPUS Bone ALP assay system. Since it's an automated immunoassay, it inherently operates as an "algorithm only" system (in the sense of the assay chemistry and instrument processing samples without direct human interpretive intervention beyond loading/unloading and reviewing automated results).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Precision and Recovery: The "ground truth" is inherent to the manufacturing and characterization of the control materials and spiked samples.
• For Accuracy by Correlation: The "ground truth" is effectively the results obtained from the Hybritech Tandem-R Ostase, the legally marketed predicate device to which the OPUS Bone ALP assay is claiming substantial equivalence.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This is an immunoassay kit. The development of reagents and optimization would involve internal validation, but a distinct "training set" in the AI sense is not applicable here.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning model described in this 510(k) notification.

Ask a specific question about this device

an indicator of osteoblastic activity which is intended to be used as an aid in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease

Tandem®-R Ostase® is an in vitro device for the quantitative measurement of skeletal alkaline phosphatase (sALP) in human serum. The assay is a solid-phase, two-site immunoradiometric assay. Samples containing sALP are reacted with a plastic bead (solid phase) that is coated with a monoclonal antibody directed toward a specific site on the sALP molecule and, simultaneously, with a second radiolabeled monoclonal antibody directed toward a different antigenic site on the sALP molecule. Following formation of the solidphase/sALP/radiolabeled antibody sandwich, the bead is washed to remove unbound labeled antibody. The radioactivity bound to the solid phase is measured in a gamma counter. The amount of radioactivity measured is directly proportional to the concentration of sALP in the test sample, which is determined from a standard curve. The standard curve is based on the concurrent testing of Tandem-R Ostase calibrators ranging from 0 to 120 µg sALP/L.

This looks like a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, which typically focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than comprehensive clinical trials with strict acceptance criteria found in PMA applications. As such, the provided text does not contain the detailed information you're requesting regarding quantitative performance metrics, study designs, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment in the traditional sense of a clinical validation study.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, highlighting what can be extracted and what information is missing:

The core of this submission is to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" of the Tandem-R Ostase assay to a previously cleared predicate device (K930810), specifically regarding an expanded indication for use. This means the focus is less on proving absolute performance against a set acceptability standard, but rather showing that it performs as well as or identically to the predicate, and that the new indication does not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Based on the provided text, specific quantitative acceptance criteria and detailed device performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy against a gold standard) are not explicitly stated. The primary "acceptance criterion" for this 510(k) is demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device and that the expanded indication poses no new safety or effectiveness issues.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The text mentions "clinical data" but does not quantify the number of patients or samples included in this data.
• Data Provenance: Retrospective/Prospective: Not specified. Country of origin: Not specified.

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

• Not applicable/Not specified. Since this is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay measuring a biomarker (sALP), the "ground truth" would typically relate to accurately measuring sALP concentrations and correlating these with clinical conditions. The text implies the clinical utility of the assay for managing patients, rather than a diagnostic decision that requires expert interpretation of images or complex data. Therefore, there's no mention of experts establishing a ground truth in the way one would for diagnostic imaging.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable/Not specified. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically used when subjective interpretations or diagnoses from multiple experts need to be reconciled, such as in imaging studies. For an IVD measuring a quantitative biomarker, this would not be a standard requirement. The "clinical data" mentioned would likely involve correlations between sALP levels and patient management decisions or disease progression, rather than adjudicating diagnostic calls.

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 applicable. This is an in vitro diagnostic device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting output. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant to this type of device.

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

• Partially applicable, but not framed as "standalone performance" in the AI sense. The Tandem-R Ostase assay itself is a standalone laboratory test. Its performance (e.g., analytical accuracy, precision, linearity) is inherent to the assay and doesn't involve a human-in-the-loop for its result generation. The "clinical data" would have been used to demonstrate that the results from this standalone assay are valuable for clinicians in patient management. The text confirms the assay's procedure is "unchanged" from the predicate, implying its standalone analytical performance is equivalent.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• Inferred Clinical Outcomes/Management Decisions. The text states that the "clinical data demonstrating that the Tandem-R Ostase assay provides the clinician with information that is of value in the management of patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease." This suggests the ground truth was related to established clinical diagnoses of these conditions and how the sALP levels (measured by the assay) correlated with patient management strategies or clinical outcomes, rather than a single "ground truth" diagnosis established by pathology or expert consensus for each case. The "value in management" is the key here.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not specified. This is not a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The "training" for the assay itself would refer to its development and optimization, which isn't described in terms of a data set.

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

• Not applicable. As above, this is not an AI/ML device that uses training data with established ground truth. The "ground truth" for the assay's development would be analytical standards and known concentrations during its chemical and biological development.

In summary: The provided text is a 510(k) summary focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence and expanding an indication for use for an in vitro diagnostic test. It emphasizes that the device's technological characteristics and core intended use (analyte, matrix) are unchanged. The "study" mentioned refers to collecting "clinical data" to support the expanded indications for managing postmenopausal osteoporosis and Paget's disease, but it does not provide the granular detail typically associated with clinical validation studies for novel devices or AI algorithms. The lack of specific quantitative performance metrics, detailed sample sizes, and expert involvement for ground truth adjudication is typical for such a submission where the primary argument rests on equivalence to an already cleared device.

Ask a specific question about this device