Search Results

Frozen Format LA Screen (FFLAS) and Frozen Format LA Confirm (FFLAC) are simplified DRVVT reagents for detection of Lupus Anticoagulants (LA) in one-stage clotting tests.

Frozen Format LA Confirm is a phospholipid-rich DRVVT reagent for the specific correction of Lupus Anticoagulants.

This product is for in-vitro diagnostic use only.

Frozen Format LA Confirm is a phospholipid-rich DRVVT reagent for the specific correction of Lupus Anticoagulants.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for a medical device called "Frozen Format LA Confirm." It's a regulatory document from the FDA, not a study report detailing acceptance criteria and performance data. Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth cannot be extracted from this document.

This document primarily indicates that the FDA has reviewed the device and determined it to be substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device for its stated indications for use, thereby allowing DSRV, Inc. to market it. It discusses regulatory compliance and general controls, but not the specific technical performance data or study details required to fill out the requested table and answer the questions.

Ask a specific question about this device

Frozen Format LA Screen (FFLAS) and Frozen Format LA Confirm (FFLAC) are simplified DRVVT reagents for detection of Lupus Anticoagulants (LA) in one-stage clotting tests.

Frozen Format LA Screen is a simplified DRVVT reagent to screen for the presence of Lupus Anticoagulants.

This product is for in-vitro diagnostic use only.

Frozen Format LA Screen (FFLAS) and Frozen Format LA Confirm (FFLAC) are simplified DRVVT reagents for detection of Lupus Anticoagulants (LA) in one-stage clotting tests.

I apologize, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "Frozen Format LA Screen" device does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer your request.

Specifically, the document focuses on the regulatory clearance process and substantial equivalence determination, and it does not include any study data, acceptance criteria, or performance metrics for the device.

Therefore, I cannot provide:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes used for test sets or data provenance.
3. Number or qualifications of experts used for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method for the test set.
5. Information about MRMC comparative effectiveness studies or effect sizes.
6. Information about standalone algorithm performance.
7. The type of ground truth used.
8. The sample size for the training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established.

The 510(k) clearance process generally focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which often relies on comparison of device characteristics and intended use, rather than a full clinical study with detailed performance metrics and ground truth establishment as you've described for AI/CADe devices. This document is a clearance letter, not a full study report or technical specification.

Ask a specific question about this device

The HemosIL dRVVT Screen and HemosIL dRVVT Confirm assays are qualitative in-vitro diagnostic products to aid in the detection of lupus anticoagulants in human citrated plasma by the diluted Russell's Viper Venom method, on the ACL TOP® Family. The HemosIL dRVVT Screen and HemosIL dRVVT Confirm assays are intended to evaluate patients who have unexplained prolonged APTT test results The HemosIL dRVVT Screen and HemosIL dRVVT Confirm assays should be used in parallel as an integrated test for Lupus Anticoagulant detection.

DRVVT Screen and dRVVT Confirm are improved dRVVT reagents, intended to simplify and standardize the detection of Lupus Anticoagulant (LA) disorder in clinical chemistry evaluations. DRVVT Screen is poor in phospholipid, making it sensitive to LA. The additional amount of phospholipid in dRVVT Confirm neutralizes LA to give shorter clotting times. Russell's viper venom, in the presence of calcium, directly activates factor X (in a test sample). DRVVT Screen and dRVVT Confirm are therefore unaffected by contact factor abnormalities, factor VII, VIII and IX deficiencies, or inhibitors. As a result, dRVVT Screen and dRVVT Confirm are more specific tests for the evaluation of LA than APTT.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for HemosIL® dRVVT Screen and Confirm Assays

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The device (HemosIL® dRVVT Screen and HemosIL® dRVVT Confirm assays) is a qualitative in-vitro diagnostic product. Instead of traditional sensitivity/specificity acceptance criteria for quantitative devices, the performance is demonstrated through comparison with a predicate device and via inter-laboratory validation studies using established cut-offs.

• ACL TOP & ACL TOP 500 CTS: PPA 100.0% (35/35), NPA 100.0% (80/80), Overall 100% (115/115) (CI 95% provided)
  3 US Field Sites (100+ samples each):
• Site 1: PPA 92.7% (38/41), NPA 98.9% (91/92), Overall 97% (129/133)
• Site 2: PPA 90.2% (46/51), NPA 98.9% (91/92), Overall 95.8% (137/143)
• Site 3: PPA 98.1% (52/53), NPA 100.0% (80/80), Overall 99.2% (132/133) (CI 95% provided for all sites) |
  | Matrix Comparison (Citrate Type) | Normalized Ratio should not be significantly affected by 3.8% versus 3.2% sodium citrate sample tubes, demonstrating high PPA and NPA. | ACL TOP: PPA 100% (19/19), NPA 92% (24/26) (CI 95% provided). Results showed the dRVVT NR is not affected by citrate tube type. |
  | Matrix Comparison (Fresh vs. Frozen) | Normalized Ratio should not be significantly affected by fresh versus frozen and once-thawed samples, demonstrating high PPA and NPA. | ACL TOP: PPA 100% (28/28), NPA 100% (26/26) (CI 95% provided). The method comparison demonstrated the dRVVT NR is not affected by fresh or frozen use. |
  | Specificity to LA | The assay should detect LA specifically and not be significantly affected by other conditions like oral anticoagulants, LMWH, UFH, DIC, or Factor Deficiency. | Known LA Positive: 100% (35/35)
  Oral Anticoagulants: 40% (2/5)
  LMWH: 0% (0/5)
  UFH: 20% (1/5)
  DIC: 0% (0/5)
  Factor Deficiency: 0% (0/6) (Performance on both ACL TOP and ACL TOP 500CTS were similar). |
  | Reference Range | A normal range study should be performed with a sufficient number of normal healthy individuals to establish reference intervals for the Normalized Ratio (NR). | A normal range study (n=120) established reference intervals for dRVVT Screen/Confirm Normalized Ratio:
  ACL TOP: Lower Limit 0.92 (0.91-0.93), Upper Limit 1.11 (1.10-1.15)
  ACL TOP 500 CTS: Lower Limit 0.91 (0.89-0.92), Upper Limit 1.13 (1.11-1.16) |

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

• Precision/Reproducibility Study Test Set:
  • Sample Size: N=80 per instrument per lot (Total: 3 lots x 2 instruments x 80 = 480 individual measurements for each control level). Specifically, 20 days, 2 runs/day, 2 replicates/run for each sample level (Negative, Weakly Positive, Positive controls).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implied to be in-house laboratory testing as part of the manufacturer's analytical performance assessment.
• Interference Studies Test Set:
  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated, but different concentrations of interferent were spiked into pooled normal plasma, weak LA positive plasma, and high LA positive plasma. The number of samples for each interferent type is not given.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implied to be in-house laboratory testing.
• Assay Cut-off Determination Test Set:
  • Sample Size: 40 normal healthy individual samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but likely from a healthy donor pool.
• "Clinical Sample" Testing (LA Positive, Oral Anticoagulants, etc.) Test Set:
  • Sample Size: Known LA Positive (35 samples), Oral Anticoagulants (5 samples), LMWH (5 samples), UFH (5 samples), DIC (5 samples), Factor Deficiency (6 samples).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but these are patient samples with specific conditions.
• Comparison Studies (Primary In-house) Test Set:
  • Sample Size: 115 samples (80 Normal / 35 known LA Positive).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implied to be in-house, possibly from a reference laboratory.
• Comparison Studies (US Field Sites) Test Set:
  • Sample Size: Site 1: 133 samples (41 LA positive + 92 normal); Site 2: 143 samples (51 LA positive + 92 normal); Site 3: 133 samples (53 LA positive + 80 normal). Over 100 samples per site.
  • Data Provenance: US field sites (presumably clinical laboratories in the US).
• Matrix Comparison (Citrate Type) Test Set:
  • Sample Size: Plasma from 26 donors. Artificial LA-Positive samples were prepared by spiking this pool.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implied healthy donors.
• Matrix Comparison (Fresh vs. Frozen) Test Set:
  • Sample Size: Blood samples from 26 normal healthy donors. LA-Positive samples were prepared by spiking this pool.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implied healthy donors.
• Expected Values/Reference Range Study Test Set:
  • Sample Size: 120 normal healthy individuals.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implied healthy donors.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications used to establish the ground truth for the test sets.

• For the "Known LA Positive" samples and samples from patients with specific conditions (Oral Anticoagulants, LMWH, UFH, DIC, Factor Deficiency), the ground truth is implied to be based on established clinical diagnosis and/or previous laboratory results for those conditions. The method of determining if a sample was "Known LA Positive" (e.g., diagnosis by a hematologist, positive by multiple other LA tests) is not detailed.
• For the "Normal" samples, ground truth is based on samples from supposedly healthy individuals.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No explicit adjudication method is described for conflicting results in the test set.

• For the comparison studies, the device's results (dRVVVT NR) were compared against the predicate device's results (LAC NR) which served as the reference/ground truth for in-house validation.
• For the field site validations, "LAC Screen/Confirm" is listed as the reference, suggesting comparison against the predicate device or a combination of standard diagnostic practices at those sites.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a diagnostic reagent for automated analyzers, not an imaging device requiring human reader interpretation. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" is not applicable. The study focuses on comparing the new reagent's performance against a predicate device and assessing analytical validity.

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

Yes, the studies presented are essentially "standalone" performance studies for the reagent and instrument combination. The device (reagent) and the automated analyzer (ACL TOP Family) generate the results without human interpretive input for the final Normalized Ratio. Human involvement is in sample collection, running the assay on the instrument, and interpreting the final numerical ratio against the established cut-off, but the diagnostic determination of the ratio itself is automated.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used depends on the specific study:

• Comparison Studies: The predicate device (HemosIL LAC Screen & LAC Confirm) served as the reference/ground truth.
• Specificity Studies (LA Positive, Oral Anticoagulants, etc.): Ground truth was based on the "known" status of the plasma samples (e.g., "Known LA Positive," "Oral Anticoagulants"). How these "known" statuses were originally established (e.g., clinical diagnosis, other laboratory methods) is not detailed.
• Assay Cut-off and Reference Range Studies: Ground truth was based on plasma samples from "normal healthy individuals."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of a "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning algorithm does not directly apply here, as this is a chemical reagent-based diagnostic assay. Therefore, there is no explicit training set in the AI sense.

However, if "training set" is interpreted as data used to establish device parameters or optimize its performance before formal validation, the following might be considered:

• The development process of the improved dRVVT reagents (HemosIL dRVVT Screen and dRVVT Confirm) would have involved extensive R&D and internal testing to optimize their composition and function. This internal optimization data is not detailed in the 510(k) summary.
• The "Assay cut-off" was determined using 40 normal healthy individual samples, which could be seen as an "internal" reference set for parameter setting.
• The normal range study used 120 normal healthy individuals to establish reference intervals.

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

As noted in point 8, a formal "training set" as understood in AI/ML is not applicable. For the data used to establish parameters like the assay cut-off or reference ranges, the ground truth was established by using plasma samples from normal healthy individuals, indicating they were free from the condition the test aims to detect (lupus anticoagulants). The method for confirming their "normal healthy" status (e.g., physical examination, medical history review, other lab tests) is not specified.

Ask a specific question about this device

LupoTek Detectin VL and Correctin VL test kits are qualitative tests intended to aid in the detection of lupus anticoagulants (LA) in citrated human plasma by the dilute Russell's viper venom method in professional clinical laboratories.

PlasmaCon LA is intended for use as an LA positive, abnormal quality control plasma to monitor the performance of diagnostic assays, performed in professional clinical laboratories, for the presence of lupus anticoagulants in citrated plasma.

LupoTek Detectin VL and LupoTek Correctin VL use Vipera lebetina venom rather than Vipera russelli (Russell's Viper) venom in the dRVVT assay for lupus anticoagulant. Vipera lebetina venom, like Russell's viper venom, will directly activate Factor X without requiring Factor VII. The activated Factor X in conjunction with Factors V, II, calcium ions and phospholipid will generate thrombin which converts fibrinogen to fibrin, producing a clot in the test system. LupoTek Detectin VL, the low phospholipid reagent, is designed as the screening reagent to detect a prolongation of the clotting time. LupoTek Correctin VL is the high phospholipid reagent that neutralizes the LA and corrects the clotting time to normal, confirming the presence of a Lupus Anticoagulant.

PlasmaCon LA is a lyophilized Lupus Anticoagulant (LA) positive plasma suitable for use as a quality control plasma for in vitro diagnostic assays in the clinical coagulation laboratory sensitive for the presence of LA

The provided text describes the LupoTek Detectin VL, LupoTek Correctin VL, and PlasmaCon LA devices, which are related to the detection of lupus anticoagulants (LA).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study as described in the text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The text does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of specific thresholds for positive or negative agreement percentages. Instead, it presents the results of a comparative study to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The implicit acceptance criterion is likely to be a high level of agreement with the predicate devices.

For PlasmaCon LA, the text states it is for use as an LA positive, abnormal quality control plasma to monitor diagnostic assays. Its performance is compared to a predicate device (American Diagnostica LAtrol Abnormal Control) based on similarities in intended use, constituent material, measurement principle, format, and analyte. Specific performance metrics like agreement percentages are not provided for PlasmaCon LA itself, as its role is a control.

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

• Sample Size for LupoTek Detectin VL / Correctin VL: 155 patient samples.
• Data Provenance: The text states "three sites" were used for analysis, indicating a multi-center study. The country of origin is not specified, nor is whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

The text does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications to establish ground truth. It implies that the predicate device's results (Stago DRVV Screen / Confirm kits) served as the reference standard for comparison.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The text does not specify any adjudication method. It describes a comparison between the investigational device and predicate devices.

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

• No MRMC study was done. The described study compares the device's performance to a predicate device, not the improvement of human readers with or without AI assistance. The devices in question are diagnostic reagents, not AI-based image analysis tools or decision support systems.

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

• Yes, a standalone study was done. The described study evaluates the performance of the LupoTek Detectin VL / Correctin VL kits themselves in detecting lupus anticoagulants in patient samples by comparing their results directly to those of the predicate devices. There is no mention of human-in-the-loop performance in this context.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth was established by the results obtained from the predicate devices (Stago DRVV Screen / Confirm kits). This is a form of comparative effectiveness or reference standard based on an already marketed and accepted diagnostic method.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The text does not mention a training set in the context of device development or performance evaluation. This type of diagnostic reagent typically undergoes initial development and validation, but the reported study is a performance comparison for regulatory submission, not machine learning model training.

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

As no training set is mentioned for the reported study, this information is not applicable/provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The STA®-Staclot® dRVV Screen and STA®-Staclot® dRVV Confirm kits are intended for the detection of lupus anticoagulants (LA) in plasma by the dilute Russell's viper venom method (1) performed with analyzers of the STA® line suitable to these reagents.

The in vitro diagnostic device presented in this 510K submission, STA® -Staclote dRVV Screen and STA® -Staclot® dRVV Confirm, is substantially equivalent to the IL Test LAC Screen and Confirm manufactured by Instrumentation Laboratories.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details based on the provided 510(k) summary:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission implicitly uses "percent agreement" with a predicate device as its primary acceptance criterion for demonstrating substantial equivalence.

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: 90 plasma samples.
• Data Provenance: The plasmas were obtained from "patients with various clinical pathologies." The country of origin is not explicitly stated. The study appears to be retrospective, as samples from existing patients were collected and tested.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

This information is not provided in the summary. The study relies on agreement with a predicate device rather than an independently established expert ground truth for each sample being tested.

4. Adjudication Method

This information is not applicable/provided. The study focuses on agreement with a predicate device, not on adjudicating discrepancies between multiple readers or diagnostic methods for ground truth establishment.

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

An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This study is an in vitro diagnostic device (reagent kit) and does not involve human readers interpreting results in the same way, for example, a medical imaging AI would. The comparison is between the new device's results and those of a predicate device.

6. Standalone Performance Study

A standalone performance study was implicitly done in the sense that the device was used independently to generate results. However, its effectiveness was measured by agreement with a predicate device, which inherently involves a comparison. If "standalone" refers to performance against an absolute gold standard established independently (e.g., pathology), that was not the primary focus or method of proving substantial equivalence in this submission. The "92% agreement" figure is the standalone device's performance relative to the predicate.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the study was established through the results obtained from a predicate device (IL Test LAC Screen and Confirm). The "ground truth" here is essentially the performance of the legally marketed predicate device.

8. Sample Size for Training Set

The sample size for a "training set" is not applicable/provided. This device is a reagent kit, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a distinct training phase on a dataset. The 90 plasma samples constitute the test set used for the substantial equivalence study.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established

This information is not applicable as there is no training set mentioned in the context of a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

CryovCheck™ LA Sure™ dilute Russell's Viper Venom Test (dRVVT) is a high concentration phospholipid reagent intended for use in a confirmatory test to verify the presence of lupus anticoagulants (LA) in human plasma. Once LA is suspected by a prolonged result with the Cryov Check™ LA Check™ screening (low concentration phospholipid) reagent, LA Sure may then be used concomitantly to establish a ratio (LA Check/LA Sure) useful in discriminating between LA positive and LA negative specimens.

Cryo Check™ LA Sure™ dilute Russell's Viper Venom Test (dRVVT) is a high concentration phospholipid reagent.

I am sorry, but based on the provided text, there is no information regarding the acceptance criteria, device performance study, sample sizes, expert involvement, or any other details typically found in a clinical study report.

The document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "Cryo Check™ LA Sure™." This letter indicates that the FDA has determined the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device, meaning it can be marketed for the stated indications for use.

A 510(k) clearance primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence, not necessarily on presenting detailed performance data from a specific study against acceptance criteria in the format you've requested. The letter mentions "indications for use" and "general controls provisions of the Act" but does not contain the kind of technical performance data you are looking for.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table or answer any of the specific questions about studying and data provenance because that information is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

Cryo✓Check™ LA Check™ dilute Russell's Viper Venom Test (dRVVT) reagent is a low concentration phospholipid reagent intended for use as a screening test for the presence of lupus anticoagulants (LA). It may be used in conjunction with CryovCheck™ LA Sure™ (a high concentration phospholipid confirmatory reagent) to establish a ratio (LA Check/LA Sure) useful in discriminating between LA positive and LA negative specimens.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "Cryo/Check™ LA Check" which is a diagnostic reagent for detecting lupus anticoagulants. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, expert ground truth, or MRMC studies.

The letter explicitly states: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) notification of intent to market the device referenced above and we have determined the device is substantially equivalent... to legally marketed predicate devices..." This means the device was cleared because it was shown to be substantially equivalent to an already approved device, not necessarily by meeting specific, new acceptance criteria through a dedicated study detailed in this document.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text. The document is essentially an approval letter based on "substantial equivalence," not a performance summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

IL Test™ LAC Screen and IL Test™ LAC Confirm are in vitro diagnostic products for the detection of lupus anticoagulants (a type of phospholipid interfering antibody) in human citrated plasma on IL Coagulation Systems. These tests are indicated for use with patients who have prolonged APTT test of undetermined origin.

This 510(k) is intended to extend the use of these reagents onto another member in the IL family of coagulation analyzers, the ACL Futura (K951891).

IL Test™ LAC Screen and IL Test™ LAC Confirm are in vitro diagnostic products for the detection of lupus anticoagulants (a type of phospholipid interfering antibody) in human citrated plasma on IL Coagulation Systems. This 510(k) is intended to extend the use of these reagents onto another member in the IL family of coagulation analyzers, the ACL Futura (K951891).

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the IL Test™ LAC Screen and IL Test™ LAC Confirm (Extension onto the ACL Futura), based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal acceptance criteria. Instead, it demonstrates performance by comparing the device on the ACL Futura with its performance on an existing ACL 300 reference instrument and assessing precision. The reported performance suggests that the device operates comparably to the predicate device and within acceptable precision limits for diagnostic assays.

• CV of 6.32% (at mean ratio of 2.03)
• CV of 2.36% (at mean normalized ratio of 1.51) |

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

• Sample Size: n = 53 for the correlation study. "3 levels of plasma" were used for the precision study, but the exact number of runs or individual samples within each run is not specified beyond "multiple runs."
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The study appears to be retrospective, using plasma samples, but this is not definitively stated. There's no mention of a prospective study design.

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

• The document describes performance studies for an in-vitro diagnostic product, not an imaging or interpretive device that would typically rely on expert human assessment for ground truth. Therefore, no experts were used to establish ground truth in the traditional sense for this type of device. The "ground truth" for this assay lies in the chemical and biological reactivity of the reagents and the accuracy of the instrument's measurement capabilities.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• None specified. As this is a performance study for an in-vitro diagnostic assay rather than an interpretive clinical assessment, an adjudication method for a test set is not applicable. The measurements are objective numerical results from the instrument.

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

• No. This is an in-vitro diagnostic product validation, not a study involving human readers interpreting results. Therefore, an MRMC study was not performed, and there's no data on the effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Yes, implicitly. The entire study describes the performance of the device (IL Test™ LAC Screen and IL Test™ LAC Confirm on the ACL Futura analyzer) as a standalone system. The measurements of correlation and precision are direct evaluations of the algorithm/instrument system without human intervention in the measurement process itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Reference Instrument Comparison and Known Samples:
  • For the correlation study, the "ground truth" was established by comparing results from the new device/instrument combination (ACL Futura) to a predicate/reference instrument (ACL 300) which is presumably already validated and considered accurate.
  • For the precision study, "3 levels of plasma" were used. These would likely be characterized plasma samples with known or expected ranges of the analyte to assess the reproducibility of the measurements.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable / Not specified. This document describes the validation of an existing diagnostic reagent on a new instrument platform, not the development or training of a new algorithm (like an AI model). Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The reagents and assay methodology would have been developed and validated previously.

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

• Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/machine learning algorithm, this question is not relevant to the provided document. The development of the reagents and assay would have involved standard chemical and biological validation methods, which are not detailed here.

Ask a specific question about this device