Search Results

The INCSTAR Herpes Simplex Virus I/II IgG "fast" ELISA kit contains instructions and materials for the qualitative and/or semi-quantitative detection of IgG antibodies to herpes simplex virus type 1 and/or type 2 in human serum by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. When performed according to instructions, the INCSTAR Herpes Simplex Virus I/II IgG "fast" ELISA test is of value in the determination of immunological response to infection with HSV. The evaluation of paired sera, acute and convalescent, by demonstrating seroconversion or a significant rise in antibody can aid in the diagnosis of primary infection with herpes simplex virus.

The method for the determination of specific anti-HSV type 1 and/or type 2 IgG utilizes the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. Polystyrene microtiter wells are coated with purified HSV type 1 and type 2 antigens. Diluted patient serum is incubated with the purified HSV antigens bound to the solid surface of the microtiter well. The HSV type 1 and/or type 2 IgG antibodies present in a patient's serum will be captured by the solid phase. After washing, affinity purified polyclonal goat anti-human IgG (Fc) antibodies conjugated to horseradish peroxidase are added to the well. After this incubation, chromogen containing tetramethylbenzidine is added. Enzyme action on the chromogen results in a color reaction. The color can be detected with a photometer at a wavelength of 450 nm. The measured enzyme activity is directly proportional to the concentration of specific anti-HSV IgG bound to the solid phase.

The provided text describes the INCSTAR HSV I/II IgG "fast" ELISA Kit, which is intended for the qualitative and/or semi-quantitative detection of IgG antibodies to herpes simplex virus type 1 and/or type 2 in human serum.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Strict acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as numerical targets in the provided text. Instead, the device's performance is presented relative to a predicate device. The general "acceptance criteria" can be inferred as achieving comparable or superior performance to the predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size: 305 serum samples, representing 305 individuals.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin. The samples represented "a mixed population of healthy individuals, transplant patients, and patients with various illnesses." The study appears to be a retrospective comparison study, as the INCSTAR kit results were compared to "results generated from the Herpes 1 IgG Clin-ELISA and Herpes 2 IgG Clin-ELISA kits," implying these results were already established or run in parallel.

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

The concept of "experts" establishing ground truth in the traditional sense for a diagnostic test like an ELISA is not directly applicable here. The "ground truth" for the performance study was established by comparison to existing, cleared predicate devices (Herpes 1 IgG Clin-ELISA and Herpes 2 IgG Clin-ELISA kits).

For discrepant results, a "commercial HSV IgG IFA" (Immunofluorescence Assay) was used for further resolution. The expertise of those who performed or interpreted the IFA is not specified.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The primary comparison was against the predicate ELISA assays. For discrepant results (samples where the INCSTAR assay disagreed with the predicate assays), "further resolution of discrepant results by a commercial HSV IgG IFA" was performed. This implies a form of adjudication by a third, presumably more definitive, method (IFA). There's no mention of multiple human readers or a specific consensus method for interpreting the IFA results.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study typically involves multiple human readers interpreting cases with and without AI assistance to measure improvement in human performance. The INCSTAR device is a laboratory diagnostic kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human interpretation.

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

Yes, the performance study describes the standalone performance of the INCSTAR HSV I/II IgG "fast" ELISA Kit. This means the device's results were generated independently and then compared to the predicate devices. ELISA kits inherently operate as standalone systems, providing a result without requiring continuous human-in-the-loop interpretation once the assay is run and read by a photometer.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary "ground truth" for the initial performance metrics (relative sensitivity, specificity, and overall agreement) was established by comparison against predicate ELISA devices that were already cleared by the FDA. For discrepant samples, a commercial HSV IgG IFA served as a higher-level "ground truth" for resolution.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or any machine learning/AI components. This is a traditional in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit. Therefore, the concept of a "training set" for an algorithm is not applicable.

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

As no training set is mentioned or applicable to this type of device, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

Not Found

Not Found

I apologize, but the provided text segments are either in a non-English language (Khmer, Arabic, Hindi, Japanese as identified by optical character recognition) or contain a lot of noise and fragmented characters that prevent me from understanding the content.

Therefore, I cannot extract any information related to acceptance criteria, device performance, study details, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment to answer your request.

If you can provide the input in a clear, English-readable format, I would be happy to assist you in describing the acceptance criteria and study details.

Ask a specific question about this device