Search Results

Healgen Propoxyphene Test is an immunochromatographic assay for the qualitative determination of Propoxyphene in human urine at a Cut-Off concentration of 300 ng/mL. The test is available in a Strip format, a Dip Card format and a Cup format.

The test may yield preliminary positive results even when the prescription drug Propoxyphene is ingested, at prescribed doses; it is not intended to distinguish between prescription use or abuse of this drug. There is no uniformly recognized cutoff concentration level for Propoxyphene in urine. The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS is the prefered confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.

For in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for prescription and for over-the-counter use.

Healgen Nortriptyline Test is an immunochromatographic assay for the qualitative determination of Nortriptyline in human urine at a Cut-Off concentration of 1000 ng/mL. The test is available in a Strip format, a Dip Card format and a Cup format.

The test may yield preliminary positive results even when the prescription is ingested, at prescribed doses, it is not intended to distinguish between prescription use or abuse of this drug. There is no uniformly recognized cutoff concentration level for Nortriptyline in urine. The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS is the prefered confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.

For in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for prescription and for over-the-counter use.

Healgen EDDP (Methadone Metabolite) Test is an immunochromatographic assay for the qualitative determination of EDDP (2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine) in human urine at a Cut-Off concentration of 300 ng/mL. The test is available in a Strip format, a Cassette format, a Dip Card format and a Cup format.

The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional judgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive. For in vitro diagnostic use only. It is intended for prescription and for over-the-counter use.

Healgen Propoxyphene Test, Healgen Nortriptyline Test and Healgen EDDP (Methadone Metabolite) Test are immunochromatographic assays for Propoxyphene, Nortriptyline and EDDP. Each assay test is a lateral flow system for the qualitative detection of Propoxyphene, Nortriptyline and EDDP (target analyte) in human urine. The products are in vitro diagnostic devices, which come in the form of: Strips, Cassettes, DipCards, or Cups. Each product contains a Test Device (in one of the four formats), and a package insert. Each test device is sealed with a desiccant in an aluminum pouch.

The provided document describes the performance characteristics of the Healgen Propoxyphene Test, Healgen Nortriptyline Test, and Healgen EDDP (Methadone Metabolite) Test, which are immunochromatographic assays for the qualitative determination of these substances in human urine. The acceptance criteria and the studies performed to demonstrate the device meets these criteria are detailed.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a separate, quantified threshold for each performance characteristic. Instead, it presents the results of various analytical and comparison studies, implying that the observed performance meets the manufacturer's internal standards for claiming substantial equivalence to a predicate device. For the purpose of this response, I will interpret the reported performance in the precision and cut-off studies as the de facto acceptance criteria demonstrated by the manufacturer.

The key acceptance criterion for qualitative drug tests is typically the ability to correctly classify samples as positive or negative relative to a defined cut-off concentration. For samples precisely at or near the cut-off, some variability is expected.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria and Reported Performance (Based on "Precision" and "Cut-off" Studies):

Ask a specific question about this device

CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Nortriptyline-Buprenorphine is a rapid test for the qualitative detection of Nortriptyline (a major metabolite of Tricyclic Antidepressants) and Buprenorphine in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 1000ng/mL and 10ng/mL, respectively. The test is the first step in a two-step process. The second step is to send the sample for laboratory testing if preliminary positive results are obtained. The test is intended for over-the-counter and for prescription use.

The test may yield preliminary positive results even when prescription drugs including Tricyclic Antidepressants and Buprenorphine are ingested, at prescribed doses; it is not intended to distinguish between prescription use or abuse of these drugs. There are no uniformly recognized cutoff concentration levels for Nortriptyline in urine. The test provides only preliminary test results. A more specific alternative chemical method must be used in order to obtain a confirmed analytical result. GC/MS is the preferred confirmatory method. Clinical consideration and professional iudgment should be exercised with any drug of abuse test result, particularly when the preliminary result is positive.

For in vitro diagnostic use only.

The CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Nortriptyline-Buprenorphine test uses immunochromatographic assays for nortriptyline and buprenorphine. The test is a lateral flow, one step system for the qualitative detection of nortriptyline and buprenorphine in human urine.

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the acceptance criteria and study details for the CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Nortriptyline - Buprenorphine device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for CR3 Keyless Split Sample Cup Nortriptyline - Buprenorphine

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for precision or accuracy using specific numerical thresholds. Instead, it presents the raw performance data from various studies. For the purpose of this analysis, I will infer the implicit acceptance criteria from the observed performance and the nature of drug screening tests (i.e., high agreement around cutoff, 100% detection for significantly positive, 100% negative for significantly negative).

Analytical Performance (Precision/Cut-off Verification)

The study demonstrates that the device performs as expected for a qualitative drug screening test, with high accuracy for samples well outside the cutoff and reasonable performance near the cutoff, which is acceptable given its intended "first step in a two-step process" role where preliminary positives require laboratory retesting.

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

Analytical Performance (Precision, Cut-off, Interference, Specificity, Specific Gravity/pH):

• Precision:
  • For each of 9 concentration levels, for both Nortriptyline and Buprenorphine: 50 tests were performed (2 runs per day for 25 days).
  • Total tests for precision: 9 concentrations * 2 drugs * 50 tests/concentration = 900 tests.
• Cut-off Verification:
  • 125 Nortriptyline samples and 125 Buprenorphine samples, equally distributed at -50%, -25%, cut-off, +25%, +50% of their respective cut-offs. (Total 250 samples).
• Interference & Specificity & Effect of Specific Gravity and pH:
  • Number of samples not explicitly stated beyond "tested for each condition (drug-free, 25% below cut-off, 25% above cut-off)" against a long list of potential interferents/cross-reactants.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for these analytical samples. They appear to be spiked samples developed in a laboratory setting for controlled testing rather than clinical samples. The studies are prospective in nature in that samples were prepared and then tested.

Clinical/Method Comparison Study (vs. GC/MS):

• Sample Size: 80 "unaltered clinical samples" for Nortriptyline and 80 "unaltered clinical samples" for Buprenorphine. (Total 160 clinical samples).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but described as "clinical samples," implying human origin. The study was performed "in-house," and the samples were "unaltered," and "masked and randomized," indicating a prospective evaluation of existing or collected clinical samples.

Lay-User Study:

• Sample Size: 260 lay persons, using urine samples (20 drug-free, 120 nortriptyline, 120 buprenorphine).
  • For Nortriptyline and Buprenorphine, each: 20 samples were tested at -100% (drug-free), -75%, -50%, -25%, +25%, +50%, +75% of the cutoff. (7 concentrations * 20 samples/concentration = 140 samples * 2 drugs = 280 samples for the lay user study, but the text says 20 drug-free, 120 nortriptyline, 120 buprenorphine, summing to 260 samples).
• Data Provenance: Urine samples were "spiked drug(s) into drug free-pooled urine specimens." The concentrations were confirmed by GC/MS. This indicates laboratory-prepared, prospectively tested samples, not necessarily from patients with the conditions. Lay users had diverse educational and professional backgrounds from 21 to >50 years of age.

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

• Analytical Ground Truth: For precision, cut-off, interference, specificity, specific gravity/pH studies, the ground truth was established by preparing samples with known concentrations of analytes (e.g., standard solutions, spiked urine). The "experts" are the laboratory personnel who accurately prepare these samples and use calibrated instrumentation.
• Clinical/Method Comparison Ground Truth: The ground truth for the 160 "unaltered clinical samples" was established by GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry), which is stated as "the preferred confirmatory method." The number of experts interpreting the GC/MS results is not specified, but GC/MS involves trained laboratory professionals.
• Lay-User Study Ground Truth: The ground truth for the spiked samples was established by preparing samples with known concentrations and confirmed by GC/MS.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Analytical Studies (Precision, Cut-off, Interference, Specificity, Specific Gravity/pH):
  • In some cases, samples were tested using "three different lots by three different operators." The results were then summarized. No formal expert adjudication method (e.g., 2+1) is explicitly described for discrepancies in these analytical studies. It implies direct data recording and analysis.
• Clinical/Method Comparison Study:
  • "Three laboratory assistants" ran the samples. The obtained results were compared to GC/MS results. The results are presented for "Viewer A, Viewer B, Viewer C," suggesting individual interpretations. The discordant tables list individual viewer's results against the GC/MS result. There is no mention of an adjudication process among the three viewers for their interpretations. The ground truth (GC/MS) is presented as definitive.
• Lay-User Study:
  • Each participant was given one blind-labeled sample and a device. The participants' results were then compared to the GC/MS confirmed concentration of the sample. No adjudication was explicitly performed for the lay users' interpretations; their results were simply recorded and compared to the established ground truth.

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

No, a traditional MRMC comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with AI assistance versus without AI assistance was not done. This device is a rapid drug screening test and not an imaging AI device. The method comparison study involved "three laboratory assistants" (human readers) interpreting the device results and comparing them to a gold standard (GC/MS), but it did not involve an AI component or evaluate the "effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance."

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, the analytical performance studies (Precision, Cut-off, Interference, Specificity, Specific Gravity/pH) and the "Comparison Studies" (method comparison with GC/MS) represent standalone (algorithm only, without human-in-the-loop performance), as the performance of the device (its ability to detect the substances) is characterized independently. While human operators perform the test and read the result line, the inherent accuracy of the device's chemical assay is what is being evaluated in these sections. The lay-user study then assesses whether an untrained human can properly interpret the standalone device's output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Studies: Known concentrations of target analytes (spiked samples) and confirmed by GC/MS for lay-user study samples. This is a form of reference standard ground truth.
• Clinical/Method Comparison Study: GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) results. This is considered a definitive laboratory reference method or gold standard for drug detection and quantification.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set for an algorithm or AI. This device is an immunochromatographic assay (lateral flow immunoassay), which is a chemical/biological test, not a software algorithm that requires training data.

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

As there is no training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable. The device operates based on antigen-antibody reactions, not a learned model.

Ask a specific question about this device

Wondfo Phencyclidine Urine Test and Wondfo Phencyclidine Urine are intended for the qualitative determination of Phencyclidine and Notriptyline (target analytes)at the specific cut-off concentration in human urine. They are intended for healthcare professional use and over the counter use.

Wondfo Phencyclidine Urine Test is an immunochromatographic assay for the qualitative determination of Phencyclidine in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 25ng/mL. The test is available in a dip card format and a cup format. It is intended for prescription use and over the counter use.

Wondfo Notriptyline Urine Test is an immunochromatographic assay for the qualitative determination of Notriptyline (major metabolite of Tricyclic Antidepressants) in human urine at a cutoff concentration of 1000 ng/mL. The test is available in a dip card format. It is intended for prescription use and over the counter use.

Immunochromatograph assay for Phencyclidine and Notriptyline Urine Test using a lateral flow, one step system for the qualitative detection of Phencyclidine and Notriptyline (target analytes) in human urine. Each assay uses a monoclonal antibody-dye conjugate from mouse against drug with gold chloride and fixed drug-protein conjugate and anti-mouse IgG polyclonal antibody in membrane.

Here's a breakdown 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 document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a numerical or percentage format for performance metrics. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, which implies that the device's performance is expected to be similar to the legally marketed predicates.

However, the core performance aspect for these qualitative urine tests is their ability to correctly identify the presence or absence of the target analytes at specific cut-off concentrations. This is implicitly the acceptance criterion: accurate qualitative detection at the specified cut-off concentrations.

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

The provided document does not contain any information regarding:

• The sample size used for any test set or clinical study.
• The country of origin of any data.
• Whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

This type of detail is typically found in a clinical study report or a more comprehensive performance data section of a 510(k), which is not fully included here. The summary focuses on the comparative features and the claim of substantial equivalence.

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

The document does not contain any information regarding:

• The number of experts used to establish ground truth.
• The qualifications of any such experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document does not contain any information regarding any adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for a test set.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done or reported in this document. The device is an in-vitro diagnostic test for qualitative determination of analytes in urine, not an imaging device requiring human reader interpretation in the same way. The comparison is made against predicate devices, not against human readers.

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

Yes, a standalone performance assessment of the device (without explicit "human-in-the-loop" assistance for interpretation beyond reading the visual result) is implied. The device itself is an immunochromatographic assay that produces a visual result (line/no line) indicating positive or negative. The "study" mentioned is the comparison of the device's characteristics and performance to predicate devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The document states its indications for use are for "healthcare professional use and over the counter use," implying that lay users and professionals interpret the inherent results of the test.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used for performance evaluation. However, for drug screens, the preferred confirmatory method is often mentioned:

• For Phencyclidine: GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) is the preferred confirmatory method.
• For Notriptyline: GC/MS or HPLC (High-Performance Liquid Chromatography) is the preferred confirmatory method.

These lab-based analytical methods are considered the "gold standard" for establishing ground truth regarding the presence and concentration of drugs in urine.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not provide any information about a training set or its sample size. For an immunochromatographic assay, the development process involves reagent selection, optimization, and characterization, rather than "training" an AI model with a distinct dataset.

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

As there's no mention of a "training set" in the context of an AI model, this question is not applicable. For the development and validation of the immunoassay itself, highly characterized samples (e.g., spiked urine samples with known concentrations of analytes, or clinical samples confirmed by GC/MS/HPLC) would typically be used to establish performance characteristics, but specific details are not provided in this summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The UCP Multiple Drug Screen Test Cups are rapid, qualitative, competitive binding immunoassays for the detection of Amphetamine, Barbiturates, Bezodiazepines, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methadone, Methamphetamine, MDMA, Morphine, Opiate 2000, Oxycodone, Phencyclidine, Tricyclic Antidepressants, Propoxyphene and their metabolites in human urine at the following cutoff levels:

The tests provide only preliminary data, which should be confirmed by other methods such as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The test configuration comes with any combination of multiple drug screen tests. Clinical considerations and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test results, particularly when preliminary positive results are indicated. The tests are not intended to be used in monitoring drug levels.

Prescription Use (21 CFR Part 801 Subpart D) And/Or Over the Counter Use (21 CFR Part 801 Subpart C)

The UCP Multiple Drug Screen Test Cups are rapid, qualitative, competitive binding immunoassays for the detection of Amphetamine, Barbiturates, Bezodiazepines, Cocaine, Marijuana, Methadone, Methamphetamine, MDMA, Morphine, Opiate 2000, Oxycodone, Phencyclidine, Tricyclic Antidepressants, Propoxyphene and their metabolites in human urine.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "UCP Multiple Drug Screen Test Cups," which is an in vitro diagnostic device. The document issues a substantial equivalence determination for this device, meaning it is considered equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the provided text does not contain detailed information about the specific acceptance criteria, a standalone study to prove the device meets these criteria, sample sizes for test or training sets, ground truth establishment methods, or the qualifications of experts. The document is an FDA clearance letter and an "Indication for Use" statement, not a scientific study report.

The "Indication for Use" section lists the drugs detected and their respective cutoff levels (calibrator and cutoff concentration), which could be interpreted as part of the performance specification. However, it does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" in the format of a typical scientific or validation study. It describes what the device is designed to do.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill most of your request using the provided text.

Here's what I can extract or infer:

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

The document describes the intended performance specifications (detection of specific drugs at specific cutoff levels). It does not provide a table of acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) alongside reported device performance (actual experimental results against those thresholds).

The table below shows the inherent performance specification from the "Indication for Use" section:

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

• Information Not Found. The document does not provide details of specific studies, including 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):

• Information Not Found. The document does not describe the establishment of ground truth or the involvement of experts for validation studies. The ground truth for drug tests like these is typically established through analytical chemistry methods, not expert consensus in the same way as medical imaging.

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

• Information Not Found. This concept is generally not applicable to a chemical immunoassay, which provides a direct quantitative or qualitative result based on chemical reaction, not human interpretation 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:

• Information Not Found. This device is an in vitro diagnostic test (immunoassay), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human readers or MRMC studies.

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

• Information Not Found (but implied by device type). The device itself is a standalone test that produces a result (positive/negative based on cutoff levels). Its performance is inherently "standalone" in this context. However, the document does not describe such a study or its results. It simply states the device's function.

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

• Inferred: For drug screen tests, the ground truth for validation is typically established by definitive analytical methods, most commonly Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). The document explicitly states: "The tests provide only preliminary data, which should be confirmed by other methods such as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)." This strongly implies GC/MS is the reference standard for confirmatory results and, therefore, the likely "ground truth" for validation studies.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Information Not Found. The document refers to a commercial product, not an AI model that requires a training set.

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

• Information Not Found. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The UCP Rapid TM Drug Screening Tricyclic Antidepressant Test and UCP Rapid™ Drug Screening Propoxyphene Test are rapid, qualitative, competitive binding immunoassays for the detection of Tricyclic Antidepressants, Propoxyphene and their metabolites in human urine at the following cutoff levels:

The tests provide only preliminary data, which should be confirmed by other methods such as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The test configuration comes with either single drug test or in combination with multiple other drug tests. Clinical considerations and professional judgment should be applied to any drug of abuse test results, particularly when preliminary positive results are indicated. The tests are not intended to be used in monitoring drug levels.

UCP Rapid 100 Drug Screening Tricyclic Antidepressant, Propoxyphene Tests are competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for qualitatively the detection of Tricyclic Antidepressant, Propoxyphene and their metabolites at the cut-off levels as indicated. The tests can be performed without the use of an instrument.

Acceptance Criteria and Study for UCP Rapid™ Drug Screening TCA, PPX Tests

This response describes the acceptance criteria and the study conducted to demonstrate the device meets these criteria, based on the provided 510(k) submission.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for each drug screening test were set against established predicate devices and confirmed by gold standard methods. The reported performance refers to the accuracy demonstrated in the clinical comparison study.

Note: The document explicitly states the "performance of ≥ 98% for all drugs when performance was compared to a legally marketed device and HPLC or GC/MS."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 128 clinical urine specimens per drug.
  • This included approximately 10% of specimens with the target drug at concentrations between -50% of the cut-off and the cut-off.
  • Another 10% of specimens contained the target drug at concentrations between the cut-off and +50% of the cut-off.
  • Total 64 positive clinical urine specimens and 64 negative clinical urine specimens were tested against each drug.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It describes them as "clinical urine specimens." The study is described as a "clinical comparison study," implying prospective collection for the study purpose or retrospective use of clinically collected samples. Without more detail, it's hard to definitively state prospective or retrospective, but the phrasing suggests a dedicated collection or selection process for the study.

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

The establishment of ground truth for the test set did not involve human experts in the traditional sense (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). Instead, the ground truth was established by laboratory analytical methods.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The ground truth was established by objective laboratory analytical methods (HPLC or GC/MS), not by expert consensus requiring adjudication.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic test for qualitative detection of drugs in urine, not an imaging device requiring human reader interpretation or AI assistance for human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The "UCP Rapid™ Drug Screening Tricyclic Antidepressant Test" and "UCP Rapid™ Drug Screening Propoxyphene Test" are described as competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays that "can be performed without the use of an instrument" and provide "visual, qualitative end results." The accuracy study directly assesses the performance of these devices in isolation against predicate devices and analytical gold standards.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used was objective laboratory analytical methods:

• High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)
• Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)

All test results from the UCP Rapid™ devices and the predicate devices were "confirmed with HPLC or GC/MS analysis."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate "training set" sample size. This type of device (lateral flow immunoassay) typically does not involve machine learning algorithms that require a distinct training phase with a labeled dataset in the same way modern AI algorithms do. The development and optimization of such assays rely on biochemical principles, antibody-antigen binding characteristics, and extensive experimental validation, rather than algorithmic training on a dataset. The performance data presented is for validation, not for training.

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

As there is no explicitly defined "training set" in the context of an AI/machine learning algorithm for this device, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set does not apply directly. The development of the assay would have involved extensive R&D and optimization using various known concentrations of analytes, where the "ground truth" (i.e., the known concentration and presence/absence of the drug) would be intrinsically understood and controlled during the development process.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ACON TCA One Step Tricyclic Antidepressants Test Strip and ACON TCA One Step Tricyclic Antidepressant Test Device are rapid chromatographic immunoassays for the qualitative detection of Tricyclic Antidepressants in human urine at a cut-off concentration of 1,000 ng/mL in reference to Nortriptyline. They are intended for Healthcare professionals including professionals at the point-of-care sites.

The ACON TCA One Step Tricyclic Antidepressant Test Strip and ACON TCA One Step Tricyclic Antidepressant Test Device are competitive binding, lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for the qualitative screening of Tricyclic Antidepressant in a urine sample. The test is based on the principle of antigen-antibody immuncchemistry. It utilizes mouse monoclonal antibody to selectively detect elevated levels of Tricyclic Antidepressant in urine at a cut-off concentration of 1000 ng/mL for Nortriptyline. These tests can be performed without the use of an instrument.

A drug-positive urine specimen will not generate a colored-line in the designated test region, while a negative urine specimen or a urine specimen containing Tricyclic Antidepressant at the concentration below the cut-off level will generate a colored-line in the test region. To serve as a procedural control. a colored-line will always appear at the control region, indicating that proper volume of specimen has been added and membrane wicking has occurred.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, outlining the acceptance criteria and study details for the ACON TCA One Step Tricyclic Antidepressant Test Strip and Device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a numerical target format (e.g., "Positive Agreement > 90%"). However, it reports performance metrics against a predicate device and a reference method, implying these reported values demonstrate acceptable performance for substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size: 226 clinical urine specimens.
  • This included "over 10% of the samples with Antidepressants concentrations at -25% cut-off to +25% cut-off range."
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It mentions "clinical urine specimens," which implies human-derived data. The study is a "clinical evaluation," typically prospective in nature, as it compares new devices to existing methods. However, it doesn't explicitly state "retrospective" or "prospective."

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

There is no mention of experts being used to establish ground truth for the test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

There is no mention of an adjudication method. The ground truth was established by comparison to the predicate device and High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC).

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study is for an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, which typically does not involve human readers interpreting results in the same way imaging AI does. The device produces a visual, qualitative result (colored line or no colored line).

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

Yes, the performance presented in the "ACON TCA One Step Tricyclic Antidepressant Test Strip versus HPLC" and "ACON TCA One Step Tricyclic Antidepressant Test Device versus HPLC" tables represents the standalone performance of the device. The device's output (presence/absence of a line) is directly compared to the reference standard (HPLC). There is no "human-in-the-loop" interpretation beyond observing the presence or absence of a line.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth was established by two methods:

• Comparison to a legally marketed predicate device: Status DSTM One Step Tricyclic Antidepressants Test.
• Reference method: Customary High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) analysis, which is an established laboratory method for drug quantification.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

There is no mention of a separate training set or its sample size. For these types of immunoassay devices, the development process might involve internal validation and optimization, but a distinct "training set" like in machine learning is not typically detailed in 510(k) submissions unless it's an AI-driven diagnostic.

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

As no training set is explicitly mentioned or detailed, there is no information on how its ground truth was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Immunoassay for the qualitative detection of TCA in human urine to assit in screening of drug of abuse samples and/or diagnosis of clinical symptoms associated with the use of drugs

Not Found

This document is a letter from the FDA regarding the 510(k) premarket notification for the "AccuSign® TCA-Rapid One-Step Tricyclic Antidepressant Assay" device. It does not contain the detailed study information required to fill out the table and answer all questions related to acceptance criteria and device performance.

The letter simply states that the FDA has reviewed the submission and determined the device to be "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices, allowing it to be marketed. It does not provide the performance data that would typically be found in a 510(k) summary or the actual study report.

Therefore, I cannot provide a detailed response to most of your questions based on the provided text.

Here's what can be inferred or stated about the information requested, with limitations:

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

• Cannot be provided. The document does not contain acceptance criteria or performance data for the AccuSign TCA device. It only states that the device was found substantially equivalent.

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

• Cannot be determined from this document. This information would be in the 510(k) submission, not the FDA's clearance letter.

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)

• Cannot be determined from this document. This information is not provided.

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

• Cannot be determined from this document. This information is 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 / Cannot be determined. This device is an immunoassay for drug detection, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device that would typically involve human readers.

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

• Yes (for the device itself). The AccuSign TCA is a rapid one-step immunoassay. By its nature, it performs its function (detecting TCA in urine) without human interpretation in the sense of a radiologist reading an image. The result is typically a visual readout (e.g., lines on a test strip). Its performance would be evaluated in a standalone manner, though this document doesn't provide the results.

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

• Most likely a reference method for drug testing. For a drug assay, the ground truth would typically be established by a highly accurate and precise laboratory method, such as Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) or High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), which are considered gold standards for identifying and quantifying substances in biological samples. However, this is an inference based on the type of device, not information directly from the document.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Cannot be determined from this document. This information is not provided. (Note: For immunoassay devices, a "training set" in the machine learning sense is typically not applicable. Instead, "validation batches" and "calibration" are more common terms, but the underlying data used to establish performance is still relevant).

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

• Cannot be determined from this document. (See #7 and #8 for context regarding "training set" for this type of device).

Ask a specific question about this device