Search Results

Light Diagnostics Varicella-zoster virus Direct Immunofluorescence Assay is intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the qualitative detection of VZV from vesicular smears and in cell culture viral isolation and confirmation.

Light Diagnostics Varicella-zoster virus direct Immunofluorescence DFA) uses the standard laboratory direct Assav (VZV immunofluorescence technique for the culture confirmation and direct specimen detection of Varicella-zoster virus. The DFA is based on the principle of antigen identification using a detector monoclonal antibody conjugated to fluorescein isothiocyanate. The substrate consists of a slide prepared from a direct specimen vesicular smear or the tissue cultured cells from a clinical specimen inoculum. Anti VZV FITC labeled antibody is applied to the substrate. The antibody will bind to specific antigen, if present, in the substrate. The fluorescein conjugated monoclonal antibody allows for visualization of the antigen / antibody complex by fluorescence microscopy.

A blend of mouse monoclonal antibodies are used as detector antibodies in Light Diagnostics Varicella-zoster virus direct Immunofluorescence Assay. The monoclonal antibodies are specific for the glycoprotein gp I or the immediate early antigen of VZV. The use of monoclonal antibodies ensures increased specificity and reduced non-specific interference.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Light Diagnostics Varicella-zoster Virus Direct Immunofluorescence Assay, submitted in 1996. This summary predates the current rigorous standards for AI/ML device evaluations and thus many of the requested elements (especially those related to AI/ML specific studies, ground truth establishment, and multi-reader studies) are not applicable or not detailed in the provided document.

Here's an analysis of the available information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 205 specimens
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It is a "clinical evaluation," implying the data is likely prospective at the time of the study, collected from patients presenting to a clinical setting.

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 in the document. The general practice for such assays is that the "ground truth" would be established by the comparator device (Meridian Diagnostics, Inc. Merifluor kit) or potentially by a combination of clinical diagnosis and culture, but the role of human experts in establishing this specific ground truth is not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not provided in the document. Given the nature of a direct immunofluorescence assay comparison, it's possible adjudication wasn't explicitly modeled in the same way as an AI/ML algorithm requiring human review. The comparison was against another established in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not mentioned or conducted. This device is a manual laboratory assay, not an AI/ML device that assists human readers.

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

The device itself is a standalone diagnostic assay. It is not an algorithm, and there is no "human-in-the-loop" AI component. The performance reported (sensitivity and specificity) is the standalone performance of the assay.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth was established by comparison to the Meridian Diagnostics, Inc. Merifluor VZV in vitro diagnostic kit. This implies that the Merifluor kit's results were used as the reference standard for the clinical evaluation. It's also implied that culture confirmation was a part of the process, as the device is for "culture confirmation and direct specimen detection."

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/provided. This is an immunoassay, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "training" of the assay involves the development and characterization of the monoclonal antibodies (as mentioned under "Nonclinical evaluation"), but this doesn't involve a distinct "training set" of patient data as understood in AI/ML.

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

This information is not applicable/provided for the reasons stated in point 8. The development process involved "characterization for their ability to detect Varicella-zoster virus" using "reference virus strains and clinical isolates," and evaluation for "cross reactivity to a variety of viral pathogens and host cell controls." This is the process for ensuring the specificity and reactivity of the antibodies, rather than establishing ground truth for a training dataset.

Ask a specific question about this device