Search Results

The AG" Chemistry Analyzer is indicated for in vitro diagnostic use for the quantitative determination of body fluid constituents using automated spectrophotometric methods.

The AG" Automated Chemistry Analyzer is the latest in a series of automated blood chemistry analyzers for the clinical chemistry laboratory that have become more and more compact as the miniaturization of the technology of the various components has proceeded. The AG" weighs only 37% as much as the currently marketed device, the ASCA Automated Spin Chemistry Analyzer, and has a "footprint" only about one-third as large. The AG" is controlled with a personal computer with a good color monitor, floppy disk drive, hard drive, and printer. The cuvette rotor has a unique self-contained design. Forty cuvettes make up a single cuvette rotor. Each cuvette is made up of a sample shelf and reagent well. The design allows reactions to be completed in the rotor rather than having to be transferred upon mixing, by centrifugal force, to a separate cuvette or reading chamber. The pump uses a rack and pinion drive with a resolution of 3000 steps. The integrated pipettor/dilutor boasts an accuracy of & 1.0% at full stroke and a precision of & 0.05% CV within-run at full stroke. This provides excellent accuracy and precision over a wide range of volumes and speeds.

This is an old 510(k) submission (1997) for a chemistry analyzer. The provided document is a 510(k) summary, which often lacks detailed study results and acceptance criteria as they would be found in the full submission.

Based on the provided text, here's the information:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a table format. It generally states that the results "supported the safety and effectiveness" and "demonstrated that it is substantially equivalent to the predicate device."

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 for any of the tests or the data provenance. It only mentions "standard samples" and "clinical 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)

This is not applicable as the device is a chemistry analyzer performing quantitative determinations. Ground truth would likely be established by reference methods or comparison to the predicate device, not by expert interpretation.

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

This is not applicable for a chemistry analyzer's performance testing.

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 is not applicable. This device is a chemistry analyzer, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device for human interpretation.

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

This is a standalone chemistry analyzer, meaning its performance is its standalone performance without human input beyond sample loading and general operation.

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

The phrase "ground truth" is not explicitly used, but for a chemistry analyzer, the accepted "truth" would come from:

• Reference standards/calibrators: For accuracy testing with "standard samples."
• Predicate device results: For comparison of "clinical samples," where the predicate device's results serve as the comparative truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

This device is not described as utilizing machine learning or AI in the contemporary sense, so there would be no explicit "training set" as understood in that context. Its development would involve engineering and calibration, not machine learning model training.

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

Not applicable, as there's no mention of a training set for an AI model. For the development and calibration of the instrument, internal standards and reference materials would have been used.

Ask a specific question about this device