Search Results

The Zeus Scientific, Inc. Legionella ELISA test system is and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the manual or automated, qualitative detection of total antibody (IgGligMligA) to Legionella pneumophila Groups 1 - 6 in human serum. This test is for in vitro diagnostic use.

Not Found

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Zeus Scientific, Inc. Aptus (automated) Application of the Legionella IgG/A/M ELISA Test System. It confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the provided document does not contain any information regarding specific acceptance criteria, study methodologies, device performance data, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications. It is a regulatory clearance document, not a detailed study report.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample size used for the test set and data provenance.
• Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth.
• Adjudication method for the test set.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study results.
• Standalone performance results.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

This information would typically be found in the 510(k) submission summary or a separate clinical study report, which is not provided in the given text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Zeus Scientific, Inc. Legionella ELISA test system is intended for the quantitative and/or quantitative detection of IgG/A/M-class antibody to Legionella pneumophila Groups 1 - 6 in human serum. The test system is intended to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of Legionella-related infections. This test is for in vitro diagnostic use.

Not Found

I am sorry, but the provided text is a letter from the FDA regarding a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, device performance, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications. Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe these details.

Ask a specific question about this device

for the qualitative detection of total antibodies (IgG and IgM) 10 Legionella pneumophila serogroups 1-6 in serum from patients with clinical suspicion of Legionella Disease.

The Legionella pneumophila IgG/IgM ELISA kit is an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of total antibodies (IgG and IgM) 10 Legionella pneumophila serogroups 1-6 in serum from patients with clinical suspicion of Legionella Disease.

The Legionella pneumophila IgG/IgM ELISA test is an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay to detect IgG/IgM antibodies to Legionella. Purified Legionella pneumopilla antigen (serogroups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) is attached to a solid phase microtiter well. Diluted test sera is added to each well. If the antibodies are present that recognize the antigen, they will bind to the antigen in the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound antibody. An enzyme labeled anti-human IgG/IgM is added to each well. If antibody is present it will bind to the antibody attached to the antigen on the well. After incubation the wells are washed to remove unbound conjugate. A substrate solution is added to each well. If enzyme is present the substrate will undergo a color change. After an incubation period the reaction is stopped and the color intensity is measured photometrically, producing an indirect measurement of specific antibody in the patient specimen.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Legionella pneumophila IgG/IgM ELISA Test Kit, based on the provided text:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document doesn't explicitly state numerical "acceptance criteria" in the typical sense (e.g., a pre-defined threshold that must be met for approval). Instead, it presents "Performance Characteristics" and compares the device's performance to a predicate device (BioWhitttaker's Legionella STAT test) and a reference method (IFA). The reported performance values are those observed in these comparative studies.

Table of Acceptance Criteria (Implied) and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly state the number of human experts involved in interpreting the IFA results or their specific qualifications (e.g., medical technologists, clinical pathologists). However, IFA is a standardized laboratory test, and its results are generally considered objective.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method in the context of human readers interpreting data. The comparisons are made against established laboratory test results (IFA). Equivocal results from the ELISA device were "not included in the above calculations" for sensitivity and specificity, which acts as a form of handling ambiguous results rather than human adjudication of ground truth.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance was not done. This study focuses on the performance of a diagnostic kit (ELISA) compared to another diagnostic kit (IFA), not on human reader performance.

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

Yes, the studies presented are standalone performance evaluations of the Legionella pneumophila IgG/IgM ELISA Test Kit. The results (Relative Sensitivity, Specificity, Agreement, Seroconversion Sensitivity, and Precision) reflect the performance of the assay itself, without any human-in-the-loop interaction influencing the calculation of these metrics.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for performance evaluation was:

• Legionella IFA (Immunofluorescence Assay) results: This is a laboratory-based method for detecting Legionella antibodies and is used as the reference standard in the comparative studies.
• CDC-confirmed IFNA titer changes: For the seroconversion study, the ground truth was a confirmed greater than 4-fold increase in IFA titer from the CDC.

The document explicitly states: "There was not an attempt to correlate the assay's results with disease presence or absence. No judgment can be made on the comparison assay's accuracy to predict disease." This means the ground truth is based on a serological reference method, not clinical disease outcomes (e.g., pathology confirmation or patient follow-up).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or machine learning/AI development. This is a traditional in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, and its performance is evaluated through clinical laboratory studies comparing it to established methods, rather than through a machine learning development pipeline involving training and test sets in the AI sense.

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

As there is no mention of a training set for an AI/ML algorithm, this question is not applicable to the provided document.

Ask a specific question about this device