Search Results

The ETI-MAX 3000™ is a fully automated microtiter plate analyzer designed to perform the complete sample processing of qualitative and semi-quantitative assays with respect to (sample dilutions, sample and reagent dispensing, incubations, wash processes, plate transports) as well as the photometric measurement and evaluation. The qualitative and semi-quantitative performance of the ETI-MAX 3000 ™ instrument were assessed using the DiaSorin ANAScreen ELISA kit, the DiaSorin Anti-SS-A (Ro) ELISA kit and the EuroDiagnostica AB ENA Single Well Screen Kit.

The ETI- MAX 3000™ is a fully automated, microtiter plate laboratory analyzer performing the complete sample processing (barcode scanner, predilution station, pipetting station, plate transport, wash station, incubators and photometric measurement). The instrument is controlled by the Windows PC software ETI- MAX 3000™. This software allows the user to process the pre-defined assays of DiaSorin.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the DiaSorin ETI-MAX 3000™ Automated Laboratory Analyzer, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the DiaSorin ETI-MAX 3000™ are implicitly defined by the demonstration of equivalent performance to manual methods for various analytical parameters of previously cleared immunology assays. The performance metrics reported are specific to analytical sensitivity, linearity, reproducibility/precision, carry-over, and method comparison/correlation.

Study Details

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

   • Reproducibility/Precision: 8 frozen repository serum samples were tested with 4 replicates per run over 5 days, at 3 different sites, using 3 different instruments. This means for each site, per sample, there were 20 individual results (4 reps/day * 5 days). The total number of measurements for precision is (8 samples * 20 measurements/sample * 3 sites) = 480 measurements per assay. The text indicates "N" could be 20 per site per sample.
   • Method Comparison/Correlation: 159 retrospective samples per assay were used.
   • Data Provenance:
     • Precision: The coded panel was prepared at DiaSorin (Stillwater, MN, USA), and testing was conducted at two external US laboratories and at DiaSorin Inc in Stillwater, MN. This indicates US-based data.
     • Method Comparison: "Retrospective samples (w/clinical history)" were used. The country of origin is not specified, but given DiaSorin is based in Minnesota, it is likely US-based or at least North American.

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

   • The ground truth for all performance evaluations (linearity, reproducibility, carry-over, and method comparison) was established by the "manual method" of the three FDA previously cleared immunology assays. The study design does not involve human experts establishing ground truth for the samples themselves. Instead, the manual method serves as the reference standard against which the automated device's performance is compared.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is an automated laboratory analyzer, and its performance is compared to a manual laboratory method, not interpreted by human readers requiring adjudication.

4. 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 MRMC study was done, as this is an automated analyzer, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that relies on human interpretation improving with AI. The comparison is between an automated system and a manual laboratory process.

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

   • Yes, the performance study is primarily a standalone evaluation of the DiaSorin ETI-MAX 3000™ automated system compared to manual methods. There is no human-in-the-loop aspect described; the device performs the assay steps and provides quantitative/qualitative results directly.

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

   • The ground truth used for comparison was the results obtained from the manual method of the FDA-previously cleared immunology assays. This acts as the "reference standard" for evaluating the automated system. The samples themselves were "frozen repository serum samples" or "retrospective samples (w/clinical history)."

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not describe a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This device is an automated instrument, not a learning algorithm. Its operation is based on pre-programmed protocols for known assays, not trained data.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no training set in the context of machine learning/AI for this device. The device's functionality is based on its mechanical and software design to execute laboratory protocols.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Polymedco SpotChem EX and ALT test system is an in vitro diagnostic instrument and procedure intended to measure the activity of the enzyme alanine amino transferase or ALT (also know as a serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase or SGPT) in serum, plasma and whole blood. ALT measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of certain liver diseases (e.g., viral hepatitis and cirrhosis) and heart diseases.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the SpotChem EZ Analyzer and ALT Test. It acknowledges that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. However, it does not contain the detailed study information required to answer the prompt thoroughly.

The letter primarily focuses on the regulatory classification and marketing authorization, not on the specific performance studies. Therefore, much of the requested information is absent from this document.

Here's what can be extracted, and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in this document.
• Reported Device Performance: Not detailed in this document. The letter only states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device, implying its performance should be comparable, but no specific metrics are provided.

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

• Sample Size: Not available in this document.
• Data Provenance: Not available in this document.

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

• Not available in this document.

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

• Not available in this document.

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 device is an in-vitro diagnostic analyzer for enzyme activity (ALT/SGPT), not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not applicable and not mentioned.

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

• This device is a standalone instrument for measuring enzyme activity. Its performance would inherently be "standalone" in the sense that it doesn't involve a human interpreting its output in the context of an algorithm's assistance. However, the exact study details are not provided.

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

• For an ALT test, the "ground truth" would typically be established by a reference method of ALT measurement, often a well-established enzymatic kinetic assay, which is considered the gold standard for accurately determining enzyme activity in a sample. This document does not specify the method.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable as this is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set in that context. If we interpret "training set" broadly as the data used to validate the initial assay, that information is not present.

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

• Not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Summary of what can be inferred or is explicitly stated:

• Device Name: SpotChem EZ Analyzer and ALT Test
• Intended Use: To measure the activity of the enzyme alanine amino transferase (ALT or SGPT) in serum, plasma, and whole blood for the diagnosis and treatment of certain liver diseases (e.g., viral hepatitis and cirrhosis) and heart diseases.
• Regulatory Status: Substantially Equivalent (510(k) clearance) to legally marketed predicate devices.
• Regulatory Class: Class I
• Product Codes: CKA (Alanine amino transferase (ALT/SGPT) test system) and JJF.
• Manufacturer: ARKRAY, Inc.

To fully answer your prompt, you would need to consult the actual 510(k) submission document (K040332) which would contain the detailed pre-market performance data submitted by the manufacturer to the FDA. This letter only provides the outcome of the FDA's review.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LightCycler Instrument is a fully automated amplification and detection system for nucleic acids using fluorescence detection. The LightCycler is intended to be used by laboratory professionals trained in laboratory techniques and on the use of the analyzer.

The LightCycler Instrument consists of a microvolume fluorimeter integrated with a thermal cycler. It combines rapid-cycler PCR in glass capillaries heated with hot-air with real-time fluorescence monitoring. The system is designed to reduce the time needed to achieve results from PCR and to enable the user to monitor the amplification of the PCR product simultaneously, in real-time and on-line.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the LightCycler Instrument Version 1.2, which is an automated analyzer for nucleic acid amplification and detection. The core purpose of this document is to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, the COBAS TaqMan Analyzer (K012966), rather than to present a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through performance metrics.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone study, type of ground truth, sample size for training set, and how ground truth was established for the training set) are not applicable or not explicitly detailed in this 510(k) summary.

The document primarily focuses on comparing the features and intended use of the LightCycler Instrument to its predicate device to argue for substantial equivalence. It does not contain information about a prospective study with specific acceptance criteria and performance data for the LightCycler Instrument Version 1.2.

However, based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
   • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated as pass/fail criteria for a new study. The acceptance is based on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to the predicate device.
   • Reported Device Performance: While not acceptance criteria in the traditional sense of a performance study, the document reports technical specifications for the LightCycler Instrument that are compared to the predicate.

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

   • Not applicable/Not provided. The document describes the device and compares its technical specifications to a predicate, but does not detail a specific performance study with a test set of samples.

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):

   • Not applicable/Not provided. No human-expert-based ground truth establishment is mentioned as this is a device for nucleic acid analysis, not an imaging or diagnostic interpretation device.

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

   • Not applicable/Not provided.

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 a fully automated instrument for nucleic acid amplification and detection. It is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that aids human readers, and therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant here.

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

   • The document describes the LightCycler Instrument as a "fully automated amplification and detection system," implying it operates in a standalone manner. However, no specific standalone performance study with detailed methodology and results is presented in this 510(k) summary; rather, its operational specifications are presented for comparison.

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

   • Not applicable/Not provided. For a device like this, the "ground truth" would typically refer to the known presence or absence of specific nucleic acid targets based on validated reference methods. This 510(k) summary does not contain details of such a validation study.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Not provided. This document describes a physical instrument, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

   • Not applicable/Not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Precision Systems ANALETTE Chemistry Analyzer is intended for the quantitative determination of analytes in solutions, such as serum, plasma, or urine. It is an "open" system, which can use a variety of commercially manufactured reagents, such as, but not limited to Synermed's Reagents for Albumin, ALT, AST, ALP, Amylase, Calcium, CO2, Cholesterol, Creatinine, CK, Glucose, GGT, LDH, Maqnesium, Phosphorus, Total Protein, Triglycerides, Urea Nitrogen, Total Bilirubin, Direct Bilirubin, HDL Cholesterol, UBIC, Iron, Chloride, and Uric Acid as shown in 510(k) K971491 using the ANALETTE under Synermed's name IR 200

An in vitro diagnostic automated clinical chemistry analyzer for the analysis of analytes in solution.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification summary and the FDA's response letter for the PRECISION SYSTEMS ANALETTE CHEMISTRY ANALYZER. It establishes "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device, the Synermed IR® 200.

However, the document does not contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study designs, or reported device performance metrics in the format requested. The "Performance" section within the Summary of Safety and Effectiveness only states: "Substantially equivalence was established in comparative studies. It was concluded from these results that this product is safe and effective." This is a general statement, not a detailed report of performance against quantitative criteria.

The information requested in the prompt (sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, etc.) is typically found in the full 510(k) submission, not in this public summary document. The summary only attests that such studies were performed and deemed sufficient to show substantial equivalence.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be filled from the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified in the provided document.
• Data Provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective): Not specified in the provided document. It refers generally to "comparative studies" but provides no details on their design or origin.

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

• Not applicable/Not specified. This device is an automated clinical chemistry analyzer. The "ground truth" for chemical measurements would typically be established through reference methods or certified standards, not expert reader consensus. The document does not mention experts establishing a ground truth for a test set.

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

• Not applicable/Not specified. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are relevant for subjective interpretations (e.g., image reading), not for automated chemical analyzers where results are quantitative.

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. The device is a standalone automated clinical chemistry analyzer, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Such a study would not be relevant for this type of device.

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

• Yes, implicitly. The ANALETTE™ is described as an "automated clinical chemistry analyzer for the analysis of analytes in solution." Its performance is inherently standalone for quantitative measurements. The "comparative studies" mentioned would have evaluated its direct measurements against a predicate device.

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

• Implied Reference Methods/Standards: For an automated clinical chemistry analyzer, the ground truth would typically be established by validated reference methods, certified reference materials, or comparison to results from highly accurate lab instruments. The document does not explicitly state the method, but this is the standard for such devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not specified. This device is a traditional automated chemistry analyzer, not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set" in the machine learning sense. Its operation is based on established chemical principles and pre-programmed algorithms for measurement and calculation.

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

• Not applicable. As noted above, this is not an AI/ML device that uses a "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device

The COBAS TaqMan Analyzer is a fully automated amplification and detection system for nucleic acids using 5' nuclease technology. The COBAS TaqMan Analyzer is intended to be used by laboratory professionals trained in laboratory techniques and on the use of the analyzer.

The COBAS TaqMan Analyzer is a flexible, automated batch analyzer that automates the real-time kinetic amplification and detection steps of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) process. The COBAS TaqMan Analyzer combines the operations of automated handling of reaction tubes (K-Tubes), thermal cycling, controlled temperature incubation, real-time photometric detection at each cycle and result reporting into a single automated analyzer. The instrument consists of four major sub-components: (1) a thermal cycler module; (2) a robotic transfer unit; (3) a photometer module and (4) a workstation, which together with an on-board real-time processor controls and monitors the major components including system and run control, results calculation, and system diagnostic tests and provides the user interface.

Here's an analysis of the COBAS TaqMan™ Analyzer based on the provided 510(k) summary, aiming to address your specific questions about acceptance criteria and study details.

Important Note: The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a device (the analyzer itself), not a specific assay that runs on the analyzer. Therefore, the acceptance criteria and performance data presented are for the instrument's capabilities as a whole, often in comparison to a predicate instrument, rather than clinical performance metrics (like diagnostic sensitivity/specificity for a disease). Clinical performance metrics would typically be found in the 510(k) for the specific assays validated for use on the analyzer.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Explanation of 'Implied' Performance: For a 510(k) for an instrument, the "acceptance criteria" are generally that the new device performs as well as or better than the legally marketed predicate device for the functions it performs. The document states that the COBAS TaqMan Analyzer was "substantially equivalent to the COBAS AMPLICOR Analyzer in all non-clinical performance studies." Where specific improvements are noted (e.g., dynamic range, sensitivity, specificity), these indicate that the new device exceeded the predicate's performance, which is also an acceptable outcome for equivalence.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set:
  • For specificity, 96 EIA sero-negative specimens were initially tested, with 3 subsequently retested, resulting in a final count of 94 for the recalculated specificity.
  • No other specific sample sizes are provided for linearity, dynamic range, precision, carryover, or correlation studies. These are described in a general comparative sense.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The studies are described as "non-clinical performance studies." It's not specified if they were retrospective or prospective, but given they are performance evaluations of an instrument, they would typically involve prospective testing of prepared samples.

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

• This information is not provided in the summary. For an instrument 510(k), experts typically wouldn't establish "ground truth" in the same way they would for a diagnostic assay's clinical performance study. The ground truth for instrument performance (e.g., linearity, precision) would be based on known concentrations of analytes in controls or characterized samples. For the specificity evaluation, the "EIA sero-negative specimens" served as a reference, and the "manual HCV AMPLICOR Test" was used for retesting and confirmation.

4. Adjudication Method:

• Not applicable/Not described in the context of this instrument performance study. Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) are typically used in clinical studies where multiple human readers interpret results, and disagreement needs a resolution mechanism. Here, the instrument's performance is being evaluated against known standards or a predicate device. The retesting of three samples for specificity could be considered a form of "adjudication" or re-evaluation to refine the ground truth for those specific cases.

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

• No, an MRMC study was not done. This type of study focuses on human reader performance, often with or without AI assistance, which is not relevant for the evaluation of this automated instrument.

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

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire "Non-Clinical Performance" section (Section 7.1) describes the standalone performance of the COBAS TaqMan Analyzer. The analyzer is described as "fully automated" and provides "interpretative qualitative or quantitative result" without direct human intervention once samples are loaded. The entire evaluation compares "the analyzer comparing it to the predicate device (COBAS AMPLICOR Analyzer)."

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth varied depending on the performance metric:
  • Linearity, Dynamic Range, Precision: Likely based on known concentrations of control materials or highly characterized samples.
  • Sensitivity (Lower Limit of Quantitation): Determined by testing serially diluted samples with known analyte concentrations.
  • Specificity: Initially referenced against EIA serology results ("EIA sero-negative specimens"). For discrepant results (TaqMan positive/EIA negative), a manual HCV AMPLICOR Test was used as a confirmatory "ground truth."
  • Correlation: Comparison against the COBAS AMPLICOR Analyzer's results on the same samples.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable/Not provided. This device is a molecular diagnostic instrument, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a separate "training set" in the conventional sense. Its "training" is in its engineering and calibration. If it contained internal algorithms, those would be part of the instrument's design and fixed, not adjusted via a training set.

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

• Not applicable. As stated above, there is no "training set" in the context of this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CARESIDE Analyzer is an in vitro diagnostic instrument intended for the measurement of various clinical chemistry analytes in human whole blood, plasma, or serum. For in vitro diagnostic use. For point of care use.

The CARESIDE Analyzer is a compact chemistry instrument that performs multiple discrete analyses on human whole blood, plasma, or serum samples. The CARESDIDE Analyzer is semi-automated: the only operator steps are the addition of the sample to the test cartridge and the insertion of the dosed cartridge into the instrument. The CARESIDE Analyzer automatically warms, separates, meters, dispenses, and incubates the sample before reading the signal and calculating results. The CARESIDE Analyzer is intended only for use with CARESIDE test cartridges. The instrument is controlled through a touch-screen interface. Results are displayed on the interface screen. Results can also be downloaded on to a 3-1/2 inch diskette or to a computer via a RS-232 port. The CARESIDE Analyzer accepts up to 6 test cartridges from a single patient at the same time.

The provided text describes the CARESIDE™ Analyzer, an in vitro diagnostic instrument for measuring clinical chemistry analytes. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices for regulatory clearance (510(k)), rather than presenting a detailed study proving performance against explicit acceptance criteria.

However, based on the information provided, we can infer the approach taken for performance evaluation and how "acceptance criteria" are implied through comparison with a predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly list quantitative acceptance criteria in the format requested (e.g., "Accuracy must be within X% of reference method"). Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing legally marketed predicate device (the Vitros DT 60/DTSC/DTE II Module and their own previously cleared CARESIDE Analyzer for lab use).

For each analyte the CARESIDE Analyzer measures, its performance would have been compared to the predicate device. The general "acceptance criteria" for regulatory clearance in this context are that the new device's performance is equivalent or better than the predicate device for its intended use, without raising new questions of safety or effectiveness.

While specific percentage differences or statistical thresholds are not given in this summary, the "Comparative Performance Characteristics" section states: "The clinical data provided demonstrate that the CARESIDE Analyzer... performs equivalently or better than the other legally marketed predicate device." This implies that for each analyte, the observed agreement, correlation, bias, and precision met the FDA's criteria for substantial equivalence when compared to existing devices.

To illustrate how such a table would be structured if explicit criteria were available, and how the performance statement translates, let's use a hypothetical example for a single analyte (e.g., Glucose) and infer the comparison:

The document points out that details for each individual test's 510(k) submission would contain the specific performance data ("see individual test 510k submissions").

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

The provided 510(k) summary does not specify the sample size for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It generally refers to "clinical data provided" without further detail. This information would typically be found in the specific validation studies submitted with each individual test cartridge's 510(k).

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

Given that this is a clinical chemistry analyzer, the "ground truth" for the test set would typically be established by comparison to a recognized reference method or a predicate device, as opposed to expert consensus on images or clinical assessments. Therefore, the concept of "number of experts" and "qualifications of those experts" for establishing ground truth is not directly applicable in the same way it would be for, say, an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device.

For a clinical chemistry analyzer, consistency and agreement with a predicate device or a gold standard laboratory method are the primary measures of ground truth. The "experts" involved would be clinical chemists, laboratory scientists, or medical technologists who perform the reference measurements and analyze the results. Their qualifications would include relevant certifications and experience in clinical laboratory testing.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

As the ground truth is established by quantitative comparison to reference methods or a predicate device, an "adjudication method" in the sense of a committee resolving disagreements (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is not typically used for clinical chemistry results. The differences between the new device and the reference/predicate would be analyzed statistically to determine agreement, bias, and correlation.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. MRMC studies are typically used to evaluate the impact of a diagnostic aid (e.g., an AI algorithm) on human reader performance, particularly in fields like radiology or pathology where human interpretation is central. The CARESIDE Analyzer is a standalone instrument that provides quantitative measurements, not an aid designed to improve human reader performance in interpreting complex data.

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

Yes, the information provided describes the performance of the CARESIDE Analyzer as a standalone device. The instrument performs the measurement and calculation of results directly from the sample without human interpretation of raw signals. The comparison in the submission (as inferred) is between the measurements obtained by the CARESIDE Analyzer and those obtained by predicate devices or reference methods.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for validating the CARESIDE Analyzer's performance would primarily be:

• Reference Methods: Measurements obtained from established, accurate laboratory methods (e.g., spectrophotometry, chromatography, highly accurate ion-selective electrodes) in a qualified clinical laboratory.
• Predicate Device Data: Performance data obtained from the legally marketed predicate device (Vitros DT 60/DTSC/DTE II Module and the CARESIDE Analyzer for lab use) on the same samples.

The document states that the individual test (analyte) cartridges were subject to separate 510(k) submissions, and those submissions would contain the detailed ground truth information for each specific analyte.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify the sample size for the training set. The CARESIDE Analyzer is factory-calibrated, and lot-specific calibration coefficients are provided via barcodes on the cartridges. This implies that extensive calibration and characterization data (which could be considered a form of "training data" for the internal algorithms/calibration curves) were collected by the manufacturer during development and manufacturing. However, the exact sample sizes for this internal development and calibration are not disclosed in this regulatory summary.

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

The ground truth for establishing the factory calibration (which is analogous to the "training set" for the device's inherent algorithms) would typically involve:

• Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) or Standard Solutions: Samples with known, highly accurate concentrations of analytes.
• Split Sample Analysis: Running samples on both the CARESIDE system and established reference methods (or predicate devices) in a robust laboratory setting to generate the dose-response curves and calibration coefficients.
• Statistical Modeling: Using the data from CRMs and split samples to derive the polynomial equations that convert raw reflectance/potentiometry signals into analyte concentrations.

The document mentions that "The observed reflectance (ODr) is adjusted by inputting it into the equation. The patient result is calculated from the adjusted ODr using the polynomial describing the master dose - response curve." This "master dose-response curve" and its associated polynomial are derived from this extensive calibration process using samples with established ground truth. This process ensures the instrument correctly interprets its raw signals into clinically meaningful concentrations across its analytical measuring range.

Ask a specific question about this device

This notification is for an in vitro diagnostic device, which is an automated chemistry analyzer, micro type, intended for clinical use in conjunction with certain materials to measure a variety of analytes, including applications in clinical chemistry, monitoring drugs of abuse and in therapeutic drug monitoring.

A random access, automated Clinical Micro-Chemistry Analyzer with a throughput of up to 180 test per hour which is intended for clinical use in conjunction with certain materials to measure a variety of analytes, including applications in clinical chemistry. monitoring drugs of abuse and in therapeutic drug monitoring.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Vitalab Flexor Clinical Laboratory Analysis and Reagent System, asserting its substantial equivalence to the Roche Cobas Mira. The document focuses on demonstrating comparable performance through various analytical modes for a range of analytes.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study as per your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission does not explicitly define quantitative "acceptance criteria" in the format of specific thresholds (e.g., "accuracy > 95%"). Instead, it states that the device's performance "demonstrates general agreement with levels that are comparable to other systems presently being marketed commercially in the United States" and shows "positive correlation and substantial equivalence" to the predicate device.

The reported device performance is qualitative in nature, emphasizing comparability rather than meeting pre-defined numerical targets.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document mentions "data on twenty-nine (29) representative Clinical Chemistry analytes," "seven (7) representative analytes for Drugs of Abuse," and "two (2) representative analytes for therapeutic drug monitoring." Additionally, it states "Thirty-eight (38) representative methods were selected for evaluation." The exact number of individual samples (patients or controls) analyzed for each analyte or method is not specified. It refers to analytes/methods as the units of evaluation, not individual patient samples.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. Given that the manufacturer is based in the Netherlands and has a USA branch, the studies could have been conducted in either location or a combination. The submission is for marketing in the United States.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The study appears to be a technical validation of an in-vitro diagnostic device assessing its analytical performance against a predicate device, rather than a clinical study requiring expert interpretation of diagnostic outcomes. Ground truth for chemical analytes would typically be established by established reference methods, not expert consensus in the diagnostic sense.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable and therefore not provided. As noted above, the evaluation is a technical comparison of an in-vitro diagnostic device's analytical performance against a predicate, not a clinical study involving human interpretation that would require 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

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is an automated in-vitro diagnostic chemistry analyzer, meaning it performs chemical analysis of biological samples without direct human-in-the-loop interpretation of visual or complex data that would involve "readers" in the context of an MRMC study. The concept of "human readers improve with AI" is not relevant to this type of device.

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

The device itself is an automated system (algorithm only). The performance data presented (precision, accuracy, linearity, drift) specifically represents the standalone performance of the Vitalab Flexor system in processing samples and measuring analytes. Without a human in the loop, this is a standalone performance evaluation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for this type of device is implicitly based on:

• Reference Methods/Predicate Device: The performance is compared to "levels that are comparable to other systems presently being marketed commercially in the United States," specifically stating that the Vitalab Flexor is "substantially equivalent to the Roche Cobas Mira." Therefore, the predicate device (Roche Cobas Mira) itself, validated through its own established analytical performance, serves as a de facto "ground truth" or standard for comparison.
• Established Analytical Principles: The evaluation of precision, accuracy, linearity, and drift relies on established analytical principles and statistical methods commonly applied in clinical chemistry. These are fundamental measures of analytical performance, where "ground truth" would be the true value of an analyte as determined by highly accurate reference methods, or the expected range given a control material.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided and is not applicable in the context of this device. The Vitalab Flexor is a traditional clinical chemistry analyzer, not a machine learning or AI-driven system that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense of supervised learning. Its operational parameters and calibration are established through manufacturers' protocols and reference materials, not through a large dataset of labeled training examples.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

This product is intended for use with Exigent Diagnostics Cartridges when used by laboratory professionals for the in vitro measurement of various clinical chemistry analytes in human blood.

This product is indicated for in vitro measurement of various clinical chemistry analytes in human blood.

The Exigent Diagnostics CareSide™ System utilizes individual (analyte specific) test cartridges to perform a variety of clinical blood tests. The user introduces the whole blood, serum, or plasma specimen into the cartridge sample deposition well, closes the lid and inserts the cartridge into the Exigent Diagnostics CareSide™ Analyzer. The Exigent Diagnostics CareSide™ Analyzer automatically performs up to 6 quantitative test results in approximately ten minutes using approximately 85 microliters of human blood per test. Results are provided on-screen, and may be transferred to a floppy disk for subsequent uploading to a laboratory information system. The Exigent Diagnostics CareSide™ System components include: CareSide™ Analyzer and Analyte-specific Cartridge(s).

The CareSide™ Analyzer is a compact tabletop chemistry analyzer that performs multiple discrete analyses on human whole blood, plasma, or serum specimens. The CareSide™ analyzer is semi-automated: the only operator intervention is the addition of the specimen to the test cartridge and the insertion of the dosed cartridge into the analyzer. The CareSide™ Analyzer automatically warms, separates, meters, dispenses, and incubates the specimen before reading the signal and calculating results. The CareSide™ Analyzer is intended only for use with Exigent Diagnostics CareSide™ test cartridges.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Exigent Diagnostics CareSide™ Analyzer, submitted on February 23, 1998. It details the device's characteristics and compares its performance to a predicate device, the Vitros DT 60 II System, to establish substantial equivalence.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the comparison to the predicate device, Vitros DT 60 II System, aiming for "as safe, effective, and performs as well as or better than" the predicate. The performance characteristics evaluated are Precision, Relative Accuracy, Linearity, Interference, and Detection Limit.

Note: The phrasing "as safe, effective, and performs as well as or better than the legally marketed predicate device" suggests that matching or improving upon the predicate's performance is the acceptance criterion. However, for "Precision," the CareSide™'s reported CV range (3.1% to 8.5%) is wider than the predicate's (1.5% to 5.2%), which might indicate worse precision. The submission, nonetheless, concludes that the data "demonstrate that the CareSide™ Analyzer is as safe, effective, and performs as well as or better than" the predicate, implying the FDA accepted these differences as not impacting substantial equivalence for the intended use.

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 in the comparative performance studies (Precision, Relative Accuracy, Linearity, Interference, Detection Limit). It mentions "4 tests evaluated" for Precision and Relative Accuracy, but this refers to the number of different types of chemical analytes for which performance was assessed, not the number of samples used for each evaluative test.

The data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) is not specified in the provided text.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications to establish ground truth for the test set. Given that this is a clinical chemistry analyzer, the "ground truth" would typically come from a reference method run by a certified clinical laboratory, rather than expert interpretation of images or clinical findings.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any adjudication method. This type of device (a micro chemistry analyzer) does not typically involve expert adjudication in the way, for example, a diagnostic imaging device might. Its performance is measured against reference methods, not subjective expert opinion.

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

No, a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. MRMC studies are typically relevant for diagnostic devices where human interpretation is a key component, such as radiology or pathology imaging, to assess how AI assistance impacts human reader performance. This device is an automated analyzer, so such a study would not be applicable.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

Yes, the data presented ("Comparative Performance Characteristics") are for the standalone performance of the CareSide™ Analyzer. The device is described as "semi-automated" requiring only operator intervention for specimen addition and cartridge insertion, with the analyzer then automatically performing all steps and calculating results. The performance metrics (Precision, Accuracy, Linearity) reflect the algorithm's direct output compared to standard methods.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for assessing the CareSide™ Analyzer's performance implicitly comes from comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (Vitros DT 60 II System) and established laboratory reference methods.

• For Relative Accuracy, the comparison is directly stated: "Mean difference [Vitros - CareSide™]". This implies the Vitros results are considered a form of "ground truth" or a highly correlated reference.
• For Precision, this is measured inherently by repeated tests on the same sample, with the expectation that results should be tightly clustered.
• For Linearity and Detection Limit, these would be established by testing samples with known, varied concentrations or concentrations near the expected limit, using reference methods to determine the true values.

Therefore, the ground truth is based on established reference laboratory methods and comparison to a predicate device's performance.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide any information about a "training set" or its sample size. This submission is for a device based on established chemical principles and reflectance photometry, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that would typically require a distinct training set in the modern sense. The "master dose-response curve" used for calculation is likely derived from validation studies during the device's development, but specific details on the dataset used for this are not given.

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

As noted above, the concept of a separate "training set" in the context of modern AI/ML development isn't explicitly described for this device. The "master dose-response curve" and "lot-specific coefficients" are central to the analyzer's calculations. These would have been established during the development and manufacturing process using samples with known analyte concentrations, validated through standard laboratory reference methods, to ensure accurate quantification of reflectance to concentration. However, the exact methodology and ground truth establishment for these internal calibration curves are not detailed in this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MAGO is intended to be used as a general purpose automated EIA processor. The MAGO is indicated for use in moderate complexity laboratories for performing automated EIA procedures.
The Diamedix MAGO is indicated for use as a general purpose automated EIA processor for use in clinical laboratories.

The MAGO and its predicates all share the same principle of operation. Each device provides a pipetting station which is capable of performing normal pipetting functions such as, accurately aspirating and dispensing fluids into microplates and a wash station capable of simulating a microplate washing device. The device allows user programming which controls the sequence of activity to allow sample dilution and addition, incubation, and reagent dispensing which mimics and duplicates manual assay procedures.

The provided text describes the Diamedix MAGO™ Automated EIA Processor, a device intended for general-purpose automated EIA processing in moderate complexity laboratories. The submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to existing manual methods and predicate devices rather than complex clinical performance studies with detailed acceptance criteria as might be expected for an AI/ML powered diagnostic device.

Here's an analysis of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in the format typically seen for a new diagnostic assay. Instead, the performance objective was "no substantial difference" between the MAGO and manual methods.

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

The text states: "The MAGO was compared to the standard manual procedures in six separate EIA systems."

• Sample Size for Test Set: This phrasing suggests that six separate EIA systems were used for comparison, but it does not specify the number of individual tests, assays, or patient samples run within each of those systems. It implies that the comparison was across different types of EIA systems (e.g., different assays), rather than a specific number of samples within one system.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective).

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

This information is not provided. The comparison was against "standard manual procedures," implying existing validated manual methods served as the reference, but no information on expert review or ground truth establishment is given.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method is mentioned.

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

No MRMC study was conducted or mentioned. The device is an automated processor, not a diagnostic aid requiring human interpretation of output. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone study was done in the sense that the MAGO's performance was directly compared to manual methods. The purpose was to show that the automated system could replicate the results of the manual methods without human intervention beyond setting up the machine.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" was established by standard manual procedures for Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) systems. This means the results obtained from manually performed EIA tests were considered the reference truth against which the automated MAGO's results were compared.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is an automated processor, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the context of machine learning. Its operation is based on programmed protocols simulating manual pipetting, washing, and incubation steps.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" in the machine learning sense for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Synermed® IR200™ analyzer is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as a multiparameter biochemistry instrument that sequentially quantitates levels of constituents in serum, plasma or urine. Testing is selective, i.e, only selected tests or profiles or automatic repeats of selected tests are performed on each sample.

The Synermed IR200 analyzer is specifically designed to perform tests with Synermed reagents or reagent applications recommended by Synermed. Consequently, no representation as to the general utility of the Synermed IR200 with other than Synermed reagents or approved applications is made and none should be inferred.

Not Found

I am sorry, but based on the provided text, there is no information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets acceptance criteria. The document is a 510(k) clearance letter for the SYNERMED IR200 Chemistry Analyzer, indicating that the device has been determined to be substantially equivalent to previously marketed devices. It outlines the indications for use but does not contain detailed performance data, study designs, or acceptance criteria.

The information you are requesting, such as performance metrics, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or details about ground truth establishment, is not present in this regulatory document.

Ask a specific question about this device