Search Results

The Nichols Advantage® Chemiluminescence Soluble Transferrin Receptor Immunoassay is intended for use on the Nichols Advantage® Specialty System for the quantitative determination of Soluble Transferrin Receptor in human serum, EDTA and Heparin plasma as an adjunct in the diagnosis of Iron Deficiency Anaemia and for the differential diagnosis of Iron Deficiency Anaemia and Anaemia of Chronic Disease.

The Nichols Advantage® Soluble Transferrin Receptor Assay is a two-site chemiluminescence assay for use with the Nichols Advantage® Specialty System.

The provided text describes the 510(k) notification for the Nichols Advantage® Chemiluminescence Soluble Transferrin Receptor Immunoassay and its comparison to a predicate device. However, it does not include specific acceptance criteria, performance data, or details of a study designed to prove the device meets acceptance criteria. The document focuses on regulatory approval based on substantial equivalence.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill most of your request as the information is not present in the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted based on the information provided:

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

This information is not provided in the text. The document doesn't state specific statistical acceptance criteria for accuracy, precision, or other performance metrics for the Nichols Advantage® assay. It only compares its characteristics (e.g., sensitivity, sample size, incubation) 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)

This information is not provided in the text. There is no mention of a test set, sample size, or data provenance.

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 information is not provided in the text. There is no mention of experts or ground truth establishment for a test set.

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

This information is not provided in the text.

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 information is not provided in the text. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic immunoassay, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers, so an MRMC study in this context would not be relevant.

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

The device is a standalone immunoassay system. Its performance is determined by the assay itself, not an algorithm that assists a human. The text describes the device's characteristics and its equivalence to a predicate device, which implies standalone performance was evaluated for regulatory purposes. However, specific standalone performance data (e.g., accuracy, precision) against defined acceptance criteria is not provided. The "Sensitivity" listed in the table is a device characteristic, not necessarily a performance outcome against a clinical ground truth.

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

This information is not provided in the text. For an immunoassay, the "ground truth" would typically refer to a gold standard method for measuring soluble transferrin receptor or clinical diagnoses against which the assay's results are validated. This is not detailed in the provided summary.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the text. Training sets are typically relevant for machine learning algorithms or for initial assay development/optimization. This document does not describe such studies.

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

This information is not provided in the text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TFR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay for quantifying the concentration of transferrin receptor in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia, particularly in the presence of other disease states.

The TFR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay based upon the double antibody sandwich method. Plasma or serum samples are diluted in buffer and pipetted into microwells pre-coated with polyclonal antibody to transferrin receptor. Horseradish peroxidase conjugated antibody specific for serum transferrin receptor (STR) is added to the wells and incubated. During this incubation, the STR binds to the polyclonal antibodies adsorbed to the wells and the HRP-conjugated second antibodies bind to the captured STR. Any unbound STR and excess HRP-conjugate are washed from the wells. Enzyme substrate is added to the wells and allowed to incubate, a stop solution is then added to stop the reaction and the intensity of the yellow product is measured in a microplate reader. The optical density of the resulting solution is directly proportional to the concentration of the STR in the standard samples. A standard curve is generated from the STR standards provided in the assay and the concentration of STR in the unknown sample is determined by comparing the unknown's optical density reading with the standard curve graph.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the TFR assay, focusing on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Quantikine IVD sTfR Immunoassay or QSI). The study primarily demonstrates agreement between the TFR assay and the predicate device, as well as agreement with clinical definitions of anemia.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study aspects based on the given information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in numerical thresholds, but rather implied by the comparison to the predicate device and clinical definitions. The 'agreement' percentages serve as the reported device performance against these implied criteria.

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

• Test Set Size:
  • TFR results: 283 total samples (38 IDA, 175 ACD, 70 "Neither IDA nor ACD")
  • QSI results: 155 total samples (23 IDA, 119 ACD, 13 "Neither IDA nor ACD"). This subset of 155 samples had both TFR and QSI results.
• Data Provenance:
  • Origin: Not explicitly stated, but implies human serum or plasma samples. No country of origin is mentioned.
  • Nature: Retrospective. The samples were collected "Over an 18 month period of time," suggesting they were existing samples at the time of the study's design.

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

• The ground truth (clinical definitions of IDA and ACD) was established based on specific laboratory values (Serum Iron, Iron Binding Capacity, Hemoglobin).
• Number of Experts: Not specified. The clinical definitions were provided as existing criteria. It is implied that medical professionals established and utilized these definitions, but no specific number or qualifications are given for any "experts" in the context of the study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• None directly specified. The clinical definitions were used as a direct "ground truth" for classifying samples into IDA, ACD, or "Neither IDA nor ACD." For comparisons between TFR and QSI, direct result comparisons were made, sometimes with the additional filter of ferritin results. This is not an adjudication process as typically understood in clinical trials with multiple human readers.

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, an MRMC study was NOT done. This study is for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay, not a medical imaging device involving human readers or AI assistance.

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

• Yes, in essence, this is a standalone performance study. The TFR assay is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test that quantitatively measures transferrin receptor concentration. Its performance is evaluated based on its output (concentration values) compared to clinical definitions and the predicate device's output. There is no human-in-the-loop component for the assay's function itself.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth was established by clinical definitions based on specific laboratory parameters (Serum Iron, Iron Binding Capacity, Hemoglobin) for IDA and ACD. For some comparisons, concurrence with ferritin results (from another test) was also used to refine the population. The predicate device's results (QSI) also served as a comparative "ground truth" for assessing agreement.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable / not mentioned. This document describes a 510(k) submission for a diagnostic assay, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that typically involves a training set. The assay's performance is based on its chemical/enzymatic reactions.

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

• Not applicable / not mentioned. As this is not an AI/ML algorithm, there is no training set in the conventional sense. The assay's "calibration" would be established through the use of standards provided within the assay kit, as mentioned ("A standard curve is generated from the STR standards provided in the assay").

Ask a specific question about this device

The Quantikine™ IVD™ sTFR Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay is intended for the measurement of sTfR concentration in human serum or plasma as an aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia, especially the differential diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia and anemia of chronic disease.

The product is a microtiter-plate-based sandwich enzyme immunoassay for soluble transferrin receptor.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for Quantikine™ IVD™ sTfR ELISA kit

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The provided document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a dedicated table format. However, it outlines performance characteristics that were tested. I will infer the implied acceptance criteria based on the descriptions provided.

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

The document does not specify the sample sizes used for the test set for precision, linearity, specificity, sensitivity, or stability studies.

The data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) is also not mentioned 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 mention using experts to establish ground truth for the test set. The performance characteristics (precision, linearity, specificity, sensitivity) typically rely on laboratory-based analytical validation, not expert consensus on clinical cases.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Since the ground truth for the test set, in terms of clinical cases or diagnoses, is not mentioned as being established by experts, there is no adjudication method described for the test set. The evaluation seems to be based on analytical performance metrics.

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

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done or is not mentioned in this 510(k) summary. This type of study is more common for imaging devices where human interpretation plays a significant role. The Quantikine™ IVD™ sTfR ELISA kit is an in vitro diagnostic assay, which typically focuses on analytical performance characteristics rather than human reader improvement with AI assistance.

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

The device described is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) ELISA kit, which is inherently a "standalone" device in the sense that its output is a quantitative measurement of sTfR concentration. There isn't an "algorithm" in the typical AI sense, nor is there a "human-in-the-loop" interaction during the assay's execution. The result is generated by the biochemical reaction, and then a human interprets that numerical result in a clinical context.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the performance characteristics described:

• Precision: Likely assessed by repeated measurements of control samples or patient samples.
• Linearity: Assessed by diluting samples with known concentrations or by spiking samples.
• Specificity: Assessed by testing for interference from various substances or cross-reactivity with related molecules.
• Sensitivity: Assessed by determining the lowest detectable concentration of sTfR.
• Stability: Assessed by testing reagents and kits over time under specified storage conditions.

In these contexts, the "ground truth" is typically established by:

• Reference materials/standards: For accuracy and calibration.
• Pre-established analytical methods: For defining what constitutes a "true" concentration or a valid measurement.
• Spiking experiments: Where a known amount of analyte is added to a sample.

Pathology, expert consensus, or outcomes data are not mentioned as directly being used to establish the ground truth for the performance characteristics reported in this 510(k) summary. Given its nature as an IVD, the ground truth relates to the analytical performance of the assay itself.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI algorithms. This is an IVD kit, which typically does not involve machine learning models that require training data. The development of such an assay involves optimization of reagents and protocols, which is an iterative process but not typically referred to as "training" in this context.

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

As there is no mention of a training set in the context of an AI/ML algorithm, the question of how its ground truth was established is not applicable based on the provided text. The development of an ELISA assay involves extensive R&D to define optimal antibody pairs, reagent concentrations, incubation times, etc., but this is a different paradigm from AI model training.

Ask a specific question about this device