Search Results

The Iron method for the Dimension Vista ™ system is an in vitro diagnostic test intended to quantitatively measure iron in human serum and plasma. Iron measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as iron deficiency anemia and other disorders of iron metabolism.

The IRON Calibrator is an in vitro diagnostic product intended to be used to calibrate the IRON method for the Dimension Vista TM system.

The Dimension Vista™ IRON Flex® reagent cartridge is an in vitro diagnostic device that consists of prepackaged reagents in a plastic eight well cartridge for use on the Dade Behring Dimension Vista ™ system for the quantitative determination of iron in serum and plasma.

The Dimension Vista™ Iron Calibrator is an aqueous solution of iron wire dissolved in a dilute solution of HCl. The kit contains three glass screw top vials, 1.0 mL each, of the Calibrator A (1075 ug/dL).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Dimension Vista™ IRON Flex® reagent cartridge and Calibrator, based on the provided document:

This document is a 510(k) summary for an in vitro diagnostic device and its calibrator. For such devices, acceptance criteria typically relate to performance characteristics like precision, accuracy (comparison to a predicate device or reference method), linearity, and interference. The study described is primarily a comparative study to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided 510(k) summary does not explicitly list quantitative acceptance criteria for performance metrics. Instead, it states that "The performance testing according to the verification and validation test protocols demonstrate that the Dimension Vista™ IRON Flex® reagent cartridge is substantially equivalent to the designated predicate device."

However, the comparison table between the device and predicate for the reagent cartridge (Section I.3) highlights similarities in performance-related parameters which imply the new device is expected to meet similar performance standards to the predicate. The stated "Assay Range: 0 to 1,000 µg/dL" is a key performance metric.

For the calibrator, similar qualitative substantial equivalence is claimed without specific quantitative acceptance criteria or performance metrics beyond its intended use for calibrating the IRON method.

Therefore, a table cannot be fully generated with explicit acceptance criteria as they are not quantitatively stated in the document. However, we can infer performance characteristics from the comparison to the predicate.

Inferred Performance Characteristics (from comparison to predicate):

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It generally refers to "performance testing according to the verification and validation test protocols." The guidance documents referenced (e.g., NCCLS EP7-A for interference, EP5-A2 for precision, EP09-A2 for method comparison) suggest standardized sample sizes and methodologies for specific tests, but the actual numbers used in this specific submission are not provided.

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

Not applicable for this type of in vitro diagnostic device (IVD). Ground truth for IVDs like this is established through comparison to a well-characterized predicate device or reference methods, not human expert interpretation of images or clinical cases.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are relevant for studies where human interpretation or diagnostic decisions are being evaluated, such as in imaging studies. For an IVD measuring a chemical analyte, the "ground truth" is determined by the reference method or predicate device's measurement, not by expert consensus or adjudication.

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. MRMC studies are used to evaluate human reader performance, often with or without AI assistance, in diagnostic imaging or similar fields. This document concerns an in vitro diagnostic reagent cartridge for measuring an analyte, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

This device is a standalone instrument-based measurement system. Its performance is evaluated intrinsically through analytical studies (precision, accuracy, linearity, interference) against established analytical methods and a predicate device. The performance is the "algorithm only" in the sense that it is the device's ability to accurately measure iron without human interpretation beyond operating the instrument and reading the numerical result.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the Dimension Vista™ IRON Flex® reagent cartridge, the primary type of "ground truth" or reference for establishing performance and substantial equivalence is:

• Comparison to a legally marketed predicate device: Dimension® Iron Flex® reagent cartridge (K060264).
• Reference materials/methods: The device's standardization is traceable to NIST SRM 937 (National Institute of Standards and Technology - Standard Reference Material), which serves as a highly accurate reference for iron concentration.
• Established analytical principles: The method adapts direct iron assays using Ferene® chromophore, a recognized chemical principle for iron measurement.

For the Dimension Vista™ IRON Calibrator, the ground truth for its value and performance is primarily NIST SRM 937 traceability and its ability to properly calibrate the iron method on the Dimension Vista™ system, aligning with the predicate calibrator.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is an in vitro diagnostic reagent and calibrator kit. It does not use machine learning or AI that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. Its performance is based on chemical reactions and optical measurements, with an analytical curve (likely established through instrument calibration and validation runs, not machine learning) guiding its quantitative output.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning for this device. The accuracy of measurements is established via traceability to NIST SRM 937 and comparison to the predicate device, following established laboratory quality control and validation procedures.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IRON method for the Dimension® clinical chemistry system is an in vitro diagnostic test intended to quantitatively measure iron in human serum and plasma. Iron measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as iron deficiency anemia and other disorders of iron metabolism.

The Dimension® IRON Flex® reagent cartridge (DF85) is an in vitro diagnostic device that consists of prepackaged reagents in a plastic eight well cartridge for use on the Dade Behring Dimension® clinical chemistry system for the quantitative determination of iron in serum and plasma.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Within-lab Standard Deviation (%CV):
Plasma pool: 0.7%
Serum pool 1: 0.6%
Serum pool 2: 1.1%
Serum pool 3: 0.8%
BioRad Lyphochek® control Level 1: 0.7%
BioRad Lyphochek® control Level 2: 1.9%
BioRad Lyphochek® Anemia control Level 1: 1.9%
Reduced Sample Volume Serum pool 1: 0.9%
Reduced Sample Volume Serum pool 2: 1.1%
Reduced Sample Volume Serum pool 3: 0.8%
Reduced Sample Volume BioRad Lyphochek® Anemia control Level 1: 1.9%
Reduced Sample Volume BioRad Multiqual® control Level 3: 0.9% |
| Linearity/Assay Reportable Range | Correlation coefficient of 0.999, slope of 0.999, and intercept of 0.178. Assay range claim: 5.0 µg/dL to 1000 µg/dL. | Correlation Coefficient: 0.999
Slope: 0.999
Intercept: 0.178
Assay Range Claim: 5.0 µg/dL to 1000 µg/dL |
| Detection Limit (Analytical Sensitivity) | Ability to distinguish iron from zero. | Analytical Sensitivity: 5 µg/dL [0.9 µmol/L] |
| Analytical Specificity (Interference) | Systematic inaccuracies (bias) due to interfering substances

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sentinel Iron Liquid is a direct colorimetric in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of Iron without deproteinization in human serum and plasma (heparin salts, only).

Iron (non-heme) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as iron deficiency anemia, hemochromatosis (a disease associated with widespread deposit in the tissues of two iron-containing pigments, hemosiderin and hemofuscin, and characterized by pigmentation of the skin), and chronic renal disease.

The Iron Liquid described in this 510(k) submission is composed of reagents and standard, packaged and distributed in the same kit. The device is intended to be sold as an in vitro test for professional use.

The Iron Liquid is a direct colorimetric in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of iron without deproteinization in human serum and plasma (heparin salt, only). In a pH 4.0 buffer system, iron is released from transferin to which it is bound, and then quantitatively reduced to a ferrous state. The iron forms with Ferene-S a stable colored complex of which the color intensity is proportional to the amount of iron in the sample. Particular reaction conditions and a specific masking agent eliminate the interference from copper.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Sentinel Iron Liquid, an in vitro diagnostic assay. It describes the device, its intended use, and a comparison to a predicate device. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study section with performance data that would allow for a comprehensive answer to all parts of your request.

Based on the information available in the document, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

The document mentions "Performance evaluations included sensitivity, intra- and inter-assay precision and method comparison." However, it does not provide a table of specific acceptance criteria (e.g., target precision values, sensitivity thresholds) nor does it report the actual device performance metrics (e.g., measured sensitivity, CVs for precision, regression statistics for method comparison). It only states that these evaluations were performed.

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

The document does not specify the sample size used for the performance evaluations (test set). It also does not mention the country of origin of the data or whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This question is not applicable as the device is an in vitro diagnostic assay for quantitative determination of iron. The "ground truth" for such devices is typically established through reference methods or established biochemical standards, not expert interpretations of images or clinical cases. The document does not mention experts being used to establish ground truth.

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

This question is not applicable for this type of in vitro diagnostic device, where ground truth is based on quantitative measurements rather than expert consensus requiring adjudication. The document does not mention any adjudication method.

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 question is not applicable as the device is an in vitro diagnostic assay for quantitative determination of iron, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. The document does not mention an MRMC study or AI assistance.

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

The Sentinel Iron Liquid is a reagent-based assay for quantitative determination of iron. It operates standalone in the sense that it produces a quantitative result; there isn't a "human-in-the-loop performance" in the same way there would be for an image-based AI diagnostic. The comparative study was against a predicate device (IL Test Iron), indicating a standalone performance comparison. The document confirms that "Performance evaluations included sensitivity, intra- and inter-assay precision and method comparison." This implies a standalone evaluation of the device's performance.

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

For an in vitro diagnostic assay like Sentinel Iron Liquid, the "ground truth" would be the true concentration of iron in the samples, likely determined by a precise reference method or by using certified reference materials and calibrators. The document does not explicitly state the specific reference method or approach used to establish the ground truth for the performance evaluations. It only implicitly suggests that the predicate device serves as a comparison for accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set

The concept of a "training set" is primarily relevant for machine learning or AI models. The Sentinel Iron Liquid is a chemical reagent-based assay. Therefore, there is no training set in the context of an AI model. The document does not refer to a training set.

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

As there is no training set for this type of device, this question is not applicable.

Summary of what is present:

• Intended Use: Quantitative determination of iron in human serum and plasma (heparin salts, only).
• Comparison to Predicate Device: IL Test Iron (Instrumentation Laboratory Company, K972363).
• Performance Evaluations Conducted (but not reported in detail): Sensitivity, intra- and inter-assay precision, and method comparison.
• Conclusion: The performance and safety data support a finding of substantial equivalence to the predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Vitalab Iron Reagent Kit, which contains both reagent and calibrator, is intended for use with the Vitalab Selectra Analyzer as a system for the quantitative determination of total iron in serum and plasma. Iron results may be used for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases associated with iron metabolism such as iron deficiency anemia, hemochromatosis (a disease associated with widespread deposit in the tissues of two iron-containing pigments, hemosiderin and hemofuscin, and characterized by pigmentation of the skin), and chronic renal disease.

The Vitalab Iron Reagent Kit and the Vitalab Selectra Analyzer are used as a system for the quantitative determination of total iron in serum and plasma. Iron in the sample is specifically released from transferrin using an acidic buffer. The released iron is then reduced and reacts with a chromogenic indicator. The increase in absorbance at 578 nm is measured photometrically. The increase in absorbance at 578 nm is proportional to the iron concentration of the sample.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and study for the Vitalab Iron Reagent Kit and Vitalab Selectra Analyzer, which are used as a system for the quantitative determination of total iron in serum and plasma.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device

The ATAC Iron Reagent Kit, which contains both reagent and calibrator, is intended for use with the ATAC 8000 Random Access Chemistry System as a system for the quantitative determination of total iron in serum. The ATAC TIBC Column Kit, which is marketed with generic labeling and an ATAC 8000 Application Sheet, is intended for use with the ATAC Iron Reagent Kit and other iron reagents for the quantitative determination of total iron binding capacity in serum.

Total iron results are used for the diagnosis and treatment of diciency anemia, hemochromatosis (a disease associated with widespread deposit in the tissues of two iron-containing pigments, and characterized by pigmentation of the skin), and chronic renal disease. Total iron binding capacity measurements are used for the diagnosis and treatment of anemia.

This reagent is intended to be used by trained personnel in a professional setting and is not intended for home use.

The ATAC Iron Reagent measures total serum iron by stripping it from the transferrin in a low pH reagent buffer, oxidizing it to ferric ions and binding it with Ferrozine. The resulting increase in absorbance at 546 nm is proportional to the iron concentration in the sample. The ATAC TIBC Column Kit is used to pretreat serum specimens prior analysis. The iron in the saturating reagent ensures that all available iron binding sites in the serum specimen are saturated with iron. The filtrate is assayed with an iron reagent after removing the unbound iron form the sample mixture by passing it through an alumina column. The maximum amount of iron bound in the specimen is a measure of its transferrin concentration.

The provided document describes the ATAC Iron Reagent Kit and ATAC TIBC Column Kit for quantitative determination of total iron and total iron binding capacity in serum. The study aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study particulars:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria, but rather presents performance characteristics of the device and claims substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The "reported device performance" are the results of the effectiveness and precision studies.

ATAC Iron Reagent Kit Performance:

Ask a specific question about this device

An iron (non-heme) test system is a device intended to measure iron (non-heme) in serum and plasma. Iron (non-heme) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as iron deficiency anemia, hemochromatosis and chronic renal disease. For the quantitative determination of iron in serum and heparinized plasma. For IN VITRO diagnostic use.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding the "Iron-PC-SL Assay." This document primarily focuses on the regulatory approval process and states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

The information requested in your prompt, such as specific acceptance criteria and the details of a study proving the device meets those criteria, including sample sizes, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone performance, is not present in this type of regulatory correspondence.

This document confirms the device's classification and its ability to be marketed, but it does not contain the technical study details you are asking for. A typical 510(k) submission would include such studies, but the letter itself is just the FDA's response.

Ask a specific question about this device

The "Wiener lab. Fer-Color AA" iron test system is a quantitative in vitro diagnostic device intended to be used in the quantitative determination of iron (non-heme) in serum and plasma. Iron (non-heme) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as iron deficiency anemia, and hemochromatosis (a disease associated with widespread deposit in the tissues of two iron-containing pigments, hemosiderin and hemofuscin, and characterized by pigmentation of the skin), and chronic renal disease.

End point method. Serum iron is released from its specific carrier protein (transferrin) in a pH 4.5 acetate buffer, and in the presence of a reducing agent (ascorbic acid). Then it reacts with the color reagent, pyridyl bis-phenyl triazine sulfonate (ferrozine) producing a colored complex measured at 570 nm.

The document describes the Wiener Lab. FER-COLOR AA test system, a photometric method for iron determination, and its equivalence to the RANDOX IRON test system for FDA 510(k) clearance.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document presents a comparison between the Wiener Lab. FER-COLOR AA test system and the RANDOX IRON test system, which serves as the predicate device. The "acceptance criteria" are implicitly set by the performance of the predicate device, as the submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Note: The acceptance criteria are largely implied by demonstrating performance comparable to the predicate device. For some parameters, the predicate did not specify a value (e.g., minimum detection limit, inter-assay precision), allowing the applicant to establish their own performance and still claim substantial equivalence if reasonable.

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

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the test set (i.e., for the precision and comparison studies) or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature of the samples). The precision data (intra-assay and inter-assay) refers to "Normal Serum Control" and "Abnormal Serum Control," but the number of samples or runs is not detailed.

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. For in vitro diagnostic tests like this, ground truth is typically established through analytical methods and reference materials, not expert consensus on interpretations.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

This information is not applicable/provided as the study is a comparison of analytical performance of an in vitro diagnostic device, not a subjective interpretation task requiring adjudication.

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

An MRMC study was not done. This type of study is relevant for imaging or interpretation devices where human readers are involved. The FER-COLOR AA is an in vitro diagnostic assay, an automated photometric method, and does not involve human readers for interpretation in this context. It is an "algorithm only" device for the measurement of iron concentration.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire submission focuses on the analytical performance of the "WIENER LAB. FER-COLOR AA" test system itself, demonstrating its precision, linearity, and other analytical characteristics in comparison to a predicate device. This is the definition of a standalone study for this type of device.

7. The type of ground truth used

The ground truth for parameters like linearity, minimum detection limit, and expected values would be based on:

• Reference materials/calibrators: For linearity, known concentrations of iron would be used.
• Assigned values: Control materials ("Normal Serum Control," "Abnormal Serum Control") used for precision studies would have assigned target values.
• Clinical studies/population data: "Expected values" are generally derived from studies on healthy populations.

The document does not explicitly state the specific ground truth methodologies in detail but implies these standard practices for IVD assays.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/provided. The FER-COLOR AA is a chemical assay, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. Its performance is based on chemical reactions and photometric measurement, not a learned model from data.

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

This information is not applicable/provided for the reasons stated in point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Iron assay is used for the quantitation of iron in human serum on the ALCYON 300/300i Analyzer. Iron (non-heme) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as iron deficiency anemia, hemochromatosis (a disease associated with widespread deposit in the tissues of two iron-containing pigments, hemosiderin and hemofuscin, and characterized by pigmentation of the skin), and chronic renal disease.

Iron is an in vitro diagnostic assay for the quantitative determination of iron in human serum. The Iron assay is a clinical chemistry assay which utilizes an acidic media to release ferric iron from the transferrin. The ferric iron is converted to the ferrous form by the action of hydroxylamine hydrochloride. The released ferrous iron reacts with FERENE® to produce a colored Iron-FERENE complex. The absorbance of the Iron-FERENE complex is measured at 600 nm and is proportional to the concentration of iron present in the sample. Thiourea and detergent are added to reduce copper interference and turbidity, respectively.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Abbott Laboratories Iron assay:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation of Implied Acceptance Criteria: The document doesn't explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for each metric. Instead, it uses phrases like "acceptable correlation" and "These data demonstrate that the performance of the Iron assay is substantially equivalent." This implies that the reported performance values were deemed sufficient to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device (Raichem Serum Iron assay). For a quantitative test like this, acceptance limits would typically be based on established clinical chemistry guidelines and comparison to the predicate's known performance for method correlation, precision, and linearity.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document explicitly states "Comparative performance studies were conducted using the ALCYON™ Analyzer." However, it does not specify the sample size used for these comparative studies (e.g., how many patient samples were tested).
• Data Provenance: The document does not provide information regarding the country of origin of the data or whether the study was retrospective or prospective. It only mentions that the studies were conducted using the ALCYON™ Analyzer.

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

This information is not applicable to this type of device. The Abbott Iron assay is a clinical chemistry assay for quantitative determination of iron in human serum. Its "ground truth" is established by comparing its performance against a legally marketed predicate device (Raichem Serum Iron assay) using patient samples, not by expert interpretation of images or other subjective data. No human experts are used to establish a "ground truth" for the measured iron levels in this context.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable to this device. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are common in studies involving subjective assessments, such as radiology interpretations or clinical diagnoses. For a quantitative chemical assay, the comparison is directly between the numerical results of the new device and the predicate device.

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

A MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed or reported. This type of study typically involves multiple human readers interpreting cases with and without AI assistance to measure the impact of AI on reader performance. The Abbott Iron assay is an automated in vitro diagnostic test, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool requiring human interpretation comparison.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire performance characterization (method correlation, precision, linearity, sensitivity) described in the document is a standalone performance assessment of the Abbott Iron assay running on the ALCYON™ Analyzer. There is no human-in-the-loop component for the measurement or result generation itself; the device processes samples and provides quantitative results. The comparison is between the new device's results and those of a predicate device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the test set was essentially the results obtained from the legally marketed predicate device, the Raichem® Serum Iron assay on the Roche® Cobas Mira® Plus Automated Chemistry System. The study establishes substantial equivalence by demonstrating that the new device's measurements align well with the predicate device's measurements.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide any information about a training set. This is consistent with a traditional chemical assay development and validation process, which typically does not involve machine learning models that require a distinct training set in the way AI/ML algorithms do. The development likely involved calibration and optimization steps, but these are distinct from "training a model" in the AI sense.

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

As no training set is mentioned or applicable in the context of this traditional clinical chemistry assay, the method for establishing its ground truth is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

For the quantitative determination of iron in serum. For IN VITRO diagnostic use.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the "Serum Iron-SL Assay." This type of document is a regulatory approval, not a scientific study report. It states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to previously marketed devices.

Therefore, the input does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer the questions regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or multi-reader multi-case studies for a medical device. These details would typically be found in a clinical study report or a more comprehensive submission document, not in the FDA clearance letter itself.

The document only provides:

• Device Name: Serum Iron-SL Assay
• Indications For Use: For the quantitative determination of iron in serum. For IN VITRO diagnostic use.
• Regulatory Class: II

Without a study report, I cannot complete the requested tables and descriptions.

Ask a specific question about this device

IL Test™ Iron is intended for the quantitative in vitro diagnostic determination of iron in human serum and plasma using the ferene method on Instrumentation Laboratory's line of clinical chemistry systems. A total iron binding capacity (TIBC) determination can also be performed using IL Test™ Iron in conjunction with the IL Test™ TIBC Sample Preparation Kit.

IL Test™ Iron permits the quantitative in vitro diagnostic determination of iron in human serum and plasma using the ferene method on Instrumentation Laboratory's line of clinical chemistry instruments. Measurements of the levels of iron are used in the diagnosis and treatment of iron deficiency anemia, hemochromatosis and chronic renal disease. A total iron binding capacity (TIBC) determination can also be performed using IL Test™ Iron in conjunction with the IL Test™ TIBC Sample Preparation Kit.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the IL Test™ Iron device, which is an in vitro diagnostic test. The document describes how the device compares to predicate devices and provides a summary of performance data.

Here's an analysis based on your requested information:

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

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" with numerical targets. Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices through correlation studies. The implicit acceptance criterion is a high correlation coefficient, indicating comparable performance to the established predicate device.

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

• Sample Size for Iron Test: 105 serum samples
• Sample Size for TIBC Test: Not explicitly stated but implied to be the same or similar to the iron test as it's part of the same "comparison study."
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. It only states "in a method comparison study."

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 and not provided in the document. For in vitro diagnostic devices like the IL Test™ Iron, the "ground truth" for method comparison studies is typically established by the predicate device's results, which are considered the reference against which the new device is measured. This does not involve expert readers or adjudication as would be the case for image-based diagnostic aids.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable and not provided. As noted above, this type of study does not involve adjudication by experts.

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. This is an in vitro diagnostic device for quantitative determination of iron in serum/plasma using a clinical chemistry instrument, not an AI-powered diagnostic aid involving human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study and AI assistance are not relevant to this type of device.

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

Yes, the performance presented is standalone. The IL Test™ Iron is designed to perform quantitative measurements without human-in-the-loop diagnostic interpretation of the results from the device itself. The results are generated by the instrument (Monarch or ILab Clinical Chemistry System) using the described method.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for this method comparison study was the results obtained from the predicate IL Test™ Iron device. The new device's performance was compared against the established performance of the legally marketed predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable and not provided. The IL Test™ Iron is a chemical reagent-based diagnostic test, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The "training" of the device is inherent in its chemical formulation and validated manufacturing process.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of in vitro diagnostic device in the context of AI/ML.

Ask a specific question about this device