Search Results

EliA CENP is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to CENP in human serum and plasma (Li-heparin, EDTA) as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of scleroderma (CREST Syndrome) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA CENP uses the EliA IgG method on the instrument Phadia 2500/5000.

EliA U1RNP is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to U1RNP in human serum and plasma (Li-heparin, EDTA) as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA U1RNP uses the EliA IgG method on the instrument Phadia 2500/5000.

EliA RNP70 is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to RNP70 in human serum and plasma (Li-heparin, EDTA) as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA RNP70 uses the EliA IgG method on the instrument Phadia 2500/5000.

The method-specific reagents are identical with K082759 (EliA CENP and EliA U1RNP) and K083117 (EliA RNP70), but are filled in containers specific for the Phadia 2500/5000 instrument. Each device consists of: Test Wells:

• EliA CENP Wells are coated with human recombinant centromere protein B 2 carriers (12 wells each), ready to use;
• -EliA U1RNP Wells are coated with human recombinant RNP (RNP70, A. C) proteins- 4 carriers (12 wells each), ready to use;
• -EliA RNP70 Wells are coated with human recombinant RNP (70 kDa) protein-4 carriers (12 wells each), ready to use;

EliA Sample Diluent:

• -EliA Sample Diluent: PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide - 6 bottles, 48 mL each, ready to use; or 6 bottles, 400 mL each, ready to use:

EliA IgG reagents:

• EliA IgG Coniugate 50 or 200: ß-Galactosidase labeled anti-laG (mouse monoclonal antibodies) in PBS containing BSA and 0.06% (w/v) sodium azide -6 wedge shaped bottles, 5 mL each, ready to use; or 6 wedge shaped bottles, 19 mL each, ready to use
• EliA IgG Calibrator Strips: Human IgG (0, 4, 10, 20, 100, 600 µg/L) in PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide - 5 strips, 6 singleuse vials per strip, 0.3 mL each, ready to use;
• EliA IgG Curve Control Strips: Human IgG (20 µg/L) in PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide - 5 strips, 6 single-use vials per strip, 0.3 mL each, ready to use;
• EliA IgG Calibrator Well: Coated with mouse monoclonal antibodies 4 carriers (12 wells each), ready to use.

The Phadia EliA Immunodiagnostic System is an automated system for immunodiagnostic testing. The EliA reagents are available as modular packages, each purchased separately. All packages are required to carry out EliA CENP, EliA U1RNP and EliA RNP70 tests.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary for the EliA CENP, EliA U1RNP, and EliA RNP70 Immunoassays on the Phadia 2500/5000 instrument describes analytical performance studies, not typically studies involving human readers or expert adjudication in the context of AI/ML devices. Therefore, several of the requested sections below are marked as "Not Applicable (N/A)" because this document pertains to an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay and instrument combination, not an AI/ML-driven imaging or diagnostic device requiring human reader studies or expert adjudication of image-based ground truth.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for EliA CENP, EliA U1RNP, and EliA RNP70 Immunoassays on Phadia 2500/5000

The acceptance criteria for this device are demonstrated through various analytical performance metrics, primarily comparing the new instrument platform (Phadia 2500/5000) to a predicate device (Phadia 250). The performance data below focuses on precision, linearity, detection limits, and method comparison.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document defines "acceptance criteria" through the results of pre-specified analytical performance studies (precision, linearity, and method comparison), demonstrating the new device's equivalence to the predicate. The "acceptance criteria" are explicitly stated for the method comparison as "the slope for the regression lines should be 0.9 - 1.1 for single replicate to single replicate and intercept close to 0." For Other performance characteristics, the "acceptance" is implied by the presentation of the results, indicating they met the manufacturer's internal standards for demonstrating substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size (Method Comparison): More than 100 samples for each EliA test (CENP, U1RNP, RNP70).
• Sample Size (Precision): 5 different samples were tested for each immunoassay. Each sample was tested in four replicates/run, over 21 runs (3 instruments x 7 runs), resulting in 84 replicates per sample.
• Sample Size (Linearity): Four patient serum samples were diluted for each immunoassay.
• Sample Size (Detection Limit): One blank sample (66 determinations) and three low-level samples (66 determinations) were used for LoD/LoQ studies for each immunoassay.
• Sample Size (Expected Values/Reference Range): 400 serum samples from an apparently healthy Caucasian population for each immunoassay.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the patient samples, but the reference populations for "Expected Values" are described as "Caucasian population obtained from a blood bank." The studies described appear to be prospective analytical studies conducted by the manufacturer to support the 510(k) submission for the new instrument platform.

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

• N/A. This is an IVD device measuring antibody levels, not an AI/ML device that requires expert human interpretation of images or clinical data for ground truth. The "ground truth" for these tests is the value measured by the predicate device and the analytical standards (e.g., linearity standards, controls).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• N/A. No expert adjudication process is described as this is an IVD device.

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

• N/A. This is an IVD device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool involving human readers of images or other complex data. The comparison is between an older instrument (Phadia 250) and a new instrument (Phadia 2500/5000) running the same assays.

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

• N/A. This is an IVD device, not an AI algorithm. The performance described is the standalone analytical performance of the instrument/assay combination.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the method comparison studies, the "ground truth" or reference method was the predicate device (Phadia 250 instrument) running the same assays. The goal was to show substantial equivalence between the new and predicate instruments.
• For analytical performance characteristics (precision, linearity, detection limits), the ground truth is established through standard laboratory practices using calibrators, controls, and reference materials as per CLSI guidelines, which are themselves traceable to established measurement procedures.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• N/A. This document describes performance validation of an IVD assay/instrument system, not the training of an AI/ML model. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the AI/ML sense. The device is a measurement system; it does not "learn" from data.

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

• N/A. As there is no AI/ML training set, this question is not applicable. The device's "ground truth" (its measurement accuracy) is established through rigorous analytical validation studies using controls, calibrators, and comparison to validated predicate methods, not through a "training set" of patient data.

Ask a specific question about this device

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of anti-centromere IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of limited cutanteous systemic sclerosis / CREST in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

An enzyme linked immunoassay (EUSA) for the qualitative detection of anti-centromere IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis / CREST in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

This test is performed as a solid phase immunoassay. Microwells are coated with recombinant purified CENP-A centromere antigens. Controls, calibrators and patient sera are incubated in the antigen coated wells to allow specific antibodies present in the serum to bind to the centromere antibodies are detected by adding an enzyme labeled anti-human lgG conjugate. Specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added and the presence of antibodies is detected by a color change that is read by a spectrophotometer at 450 nm. Results are expressed in ELISA units per milliliter (EU/ml) and reported as positive or negative.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the ImmuLisa™ Enhanced Centromere Antibody ELISA, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a numerical target format (e.g., "sensitivity must be > X%"). Instead, the performance is demonstrated and presented for comparison to the predicate device and in clinical utility. Therefore, the reported performance metrics are presented in the table as the de facto "acceptance criteria" based on the study findings.

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

• Method Comparison Test Set: 407 samples (59 positive, 348 negative by predicate).
• Cross-Reactivity Test Set: 669 specimens from individuals with various autoimmune or infectious diseases.
• Precision Test Set: 7 patient samples, run in duplicate, twice per day for 20 days (n=80 replicates per sample).
• Reproducibility Test Set: Samples ranging from ~20% below cutoff, ~20% above cutoff, and in the moderate positive range. Run in duplicate twice per day for 20 days.
• Limit of Detection Test Set: 60 replicates of blank, 10 replicates each of 6 low-level samples.
• Clinical Test Set: 124 IcSSc/CREST samples and 865 autoimmune and infectious disease controls.

Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the samples or whether they were retrospectively or prospectively collected. "Well-characterized lcSSc / CREST subjects and disease controls" are mentioned for the method comparison, suggesting pre-existing characterized samples. The clinical tests also use "Sets of clinical samples." Without further information, it's difficult to determine the specific provenance or collection method.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test sets. For the method comparison, it refers to "well-characterized lcSSc / CREST subjects and disease controls," which implies clinical diagnosis, but the process of this characterization is not detailed. The "clinical tests" used IcSSc/CREST samples and controls, which would have had prior clinical diagnoses, but the adjudication of these diagnoses for the purpose of the study is not explained.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for establishing the ground truth of the test set samples. The ground truth appears to be based on prior clinical diagnoses or characterization, but the details of how these were confirmed or adjudicated for the study are not provided.

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 done. The device is an immunoassay (ELISA) for detecting antibodies, not an imaging or diagnostic algorithm that human readers would interact with.

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

Yes, this is a standalone performance study. The ImmuLisa™ Enhanced Centromere Antibody ELISA is an in-vitro diagnostic device designed to provide results directly. Its performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, agreement) is assessed independently of direct human intervention in the result interpretation beyond standard laboratory procedures for running the assay and reading the spectrophotometer. The results are expressed quantitatively (EU/ml) and then interpreted qualitatively (positive/negative) based on a defined cutoff.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the test sets (especially for method comparison and clinical performance) appears to be expert consensus / clinical diagnosis.

• For the Method Comparison, samples were "well-characterized lcSSc / CREST subjects and disease controls," implying pre-established clinical diagnoses.
• For Clinical Tests, "IcSSc/CREST samples" and "autoimmune and infectious disease controls" were used, again relying on existing clinical diagnoses as the reference standard.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of device development or algorithm training. This is expected as the ImmuLisa™ is an ELISA kit, which relies on biochemical reactions and calibrated readouts rather than machine learning algorithms that typically require training data. The development of the assay itself would involve optimization and calibration, but this is distinct from "training a model."

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

As no "training set" in the machine learning sense is described or implied for this ELISA kit, the question of how its ground truth was established is not applicable. The development of such diagnostic kits involves rigorous assay design, optimization, and validation against known standards and clinically characterized samples, but this is a different paradigm than algorithm training.

Ask a specific question about this device

EliA Scl-70s is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to Scl-70 in human serum and plasma (heparin, EDTA) as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of scleroderma (diffuse form) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA Scl-70s uses the EliA IgG method on the instrument Phadia 100.

EliA Scl-70s is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to Scl-70 in human serum and plasma (heparin, EDTA) as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of scleroderma (diffuse form) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA Scl-70s uses the EliA IgG method on the instrument Phadia 250.

The Phadia EliA immunodiagnostic system is automated system for immunodiagnostic testing. The EliA reagents are available as modular packages, each purchased separately. All packages except the positive and negative controls are required to carry out an EliA Scl-70° test.

The acceptance criteria and study detailed in the provided document pertain to the EliA™ Scl-70S Immunoassay, an in vitro semi-quantitative test for IgG antibodies directed to Scl-70.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria for the clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity). However, it reports the performance of the EliA Scl-70S based on its clinical study. For analytical performance, the acceptance criteria are implied by the reported results meeting generally accepted ranges for such assays.

Ask a specific question about this device

QUANTA Flash Centromere is a chemiluminescent immunoassay for the semi-quantitative determination of IgG anti-centromere protein B autoantibodies in human serum. The presence of anti-centromere protein B autoantibodies is used as an aid in the diagnosis Systemic Sclerosis, in conjunction with clinical finding and other laboratory tests.

QUANTA Flash Centromere Calibrators are intended for use with the QUANTA Flash Centromere Reagents for the determination of IgG anti-Centromere autoantibodies in human serum. Each calibrator establishes a point of reference for the working curve that is used to calculate the unit values.

QUANTA Flash Centromere Controls are intended for use with the QUANTA Flash Centromere Reagents for quality control in the determination of IgG anti-centromere protein B autoantibodies in human serum.

Not Found

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to in vitro diagnostic devices (reagents, calibrators, and controls) for detecting anti-centromere protein B autoantibodies. As such, the concept of a "device" in the context of an AI or imaging system, with acceptance criteria like sensitivity, specificity, and a detailed study report, is not directly applicable here.

However, I can extract the relevant information from the document in a way that aligns with your request's structure as much as possible, interpreting "device performance" as the intended use claims and "study" as the evidence supporting those claims.

Here's an interpretation based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Interpreted for IVD)

Study Details (Based on the nature of a 510(k) for an IVD kit)

Please note that this document is a 510(k) clearance letter, which affirms substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It usually does not contain the detailed study report itself, but rather references the successful submission of such data. Therefore, many of the specific quantitative details you requested are not present in this letter.

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

   • Sample Size: Not specified in the clearance letter. For IVDs, this would typically involve a statistically significant number of patient samples (both positive and negative for the target autoantibody and disease state) and controls.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified in the clearance letter. Clinical data would typically come from retrospective or prospective collections in various clinical settings.

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

   • Not specified. For IVDs detecting autoantibodies for diagnostic aid, "ground truth" often involves a combination of:
     • Clinical diagnosis by qualified physicians (e.g., rheumatologists) based on established criteria (e.g., ACR/EULAR criteria for Systemic Sclerosis).
     • Results from other established laboratory reference methods (e.g., IFA, Western Blot, or another cleared ELISA/CLIA).
     • Patient medical history and follow-up.
   • The "experts" would be the clinicians and laboratory professionals involved in establishing the patient's true disease status or autoantibody presence.

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

   • Not specified. Adjudication methods are more common in imaging studies. For IVDs, discrepancies between the investigational device and the ground truth (or predicate method) would typically be investigated per study protocol, potentially involving re-testing or review of clinical records.

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:

   • Not applicable. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay kit, not an AI or imaging device involving human "readers." It provides a semi-quantitative measurement of an autoantibody.

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

   • Applicable in a different context. The "device" (reagent, calibrators, controls) provides a result (semi-quantitative determination of autoantibodies) without human interpretation of complex images or signals in the way an AI would. The human "in the loop" aspects for an IVD are the laboratory technician performing the test and the clinician interpreting the result in the context of other clinical findings. The performance demonstrated in the submission would be the "standalone" analytical and clinical performance of the assay system itself.

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

   • As inferred above, the ground truth for the clinical utility claim ("aid in the diagnosis of Systemic Sclerosis") would likely be established by clinical diagnosis based on established criteria and other laboratory tests, potentially supported by long-term outcomes data or comparison to a reference method. For analytical performance, ground truth would be established by known positive/negative samples and spiked samples.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not explicitly mentioned. For an IVD, the concept of a "training set" in the context of machine learning isn't directly applicable in the same way. However, method development and optimization would involve numerous experiments with various samples (analogous to training/tuning) before final validation. The 510(k) submission would focus on the validation (test set) performance.

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

   • Not applicable in the AI/ML context. For IVD development, "ground truth" during development involves using well-characterized samples (e.g., clinically confirmed SSc patients, healthy controls, disease controls) for analytical and early clinical studies to optimize the assay parameters and ensure it functions as intended.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Gold Standard Diagnostics Antibody (ANA) Screen ELISA Test Kit is a qualitative assay for the detection of ANAs in human serum. The assay collectively detects in one well ANAs against double stranded DNA (dsDNA), SSA (Ro60 and Ro52), SSB (La), Sm, Sm/RNP, Scl-70, Jo-1, Ribosomal P, and Centromeric antibodies along with sera positive for immunofluorescent HEp-2 ANAs.

The assay is used as an aid in the diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Mixed Connective Tissue Disease, Sjögren's Syndrome, Progressive Systemic Sclerosis, and Polymyositis/Dermatomyositis, and should be used in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

The assay requires a total of 90 minutes incubation time. The test uses antigen coated on microtiter wells. Serum is added to each well and incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature. If antibodies are present they will bind to the antigen in the well. Unbound serum is removed by washing the wells three times. An HRP-conjugated anti-human IgG is then added to each well and incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature. If antibody is present, it will bind to the antibody attached to the antigen on the well. The wells are again washed three times to remove any unbound conjugate. A TMB substrate is added to each well and incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature. If enzyme is present, it will react with the substrate to generate a colored product. After the incubation period, the reaction is stopped with a Stop Solution and the color intensity is measured spectrophotometrically.

The provided text describes the performance evaluation of the "Gold Standard Diagnostics Anti-Nuclear Antibody (ANA) Screen ELISA Test Kit" and its comparison to a predicate device.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria (e.g., "The device must achieve >X% sensitivity and >Y% specificity"). Instead, it presents the device's performance in comparison to a predicate device and provides clinical sensitivity and specificity for various conditions.

However, we can infer performance targets by looking at the results that demonstrate equivalence or acceptable clinical utility. For the purpose of this analysis, I will present the reported performance of the device, especially concerning agreement with the predicate and clinical sensitivity/specificity.

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

• Test Set for Equivalence to Predicate Device: 848 samples
• Test Set for Clinical Sensitivity/Specificity: 753 samples (510 CTD samples, 243 Non-CTD & others)
• Test Set for Analyte Specificity (initial comparison): 55 samples (5 samples for each of 11 analytes)
• Test Set for Analytical Specificity (CDC & AMLI samples): 20 samples (10 CDC, 10 AMLI)
• Test Set for Precision: 7 samples
• Test Set for Reproducibility: 3 samples tested across 3 sites
• Test Set for Lot-to-Lot Comparison: 3 samples tested across 3 lots
• Test Set for Expected Values (Normal Donors): 99 normal blood donors (51 males, 48 females)

The data provenance is not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin, but it is indicated that the clinical comparison was conducted at three different sites. The samples for clinical sensitivity and specificity were "clinically diagnosed connective tissue and non-connective tissue disease sera." The study is retrospective in the sense that existing samples were tested, not samples collected specifically for a prospective clinical trial.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts for establishing ground truth for the clinical samples. For the comparison to the predicate device, the "ground truth" was essentially the result from the "commercially available Anti-Nuclear Antibody ELISA test," which is the predicate device itself. For the clinical sensitivity/specificity, the ground truth was based on "Clinical Diagnosis" (e.g., Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Systemic Sclerosis (SSc)), but the process of how these clinical diagnoses were definitively established is not detailed, nor is the number or qualifications of the clinicians involved.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) for the test sets. For the comparison to the predicate, it presents the agreement directly. For clinical sensitivity and specificity, it relies on existing clinical diagnoses. For the analytical specificity with CDC and AMLI samples, it states, "All CDC and AMLI samples gave their expected results," implying predefined expected results without mentioning an adjudication process for these specific samples.

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 section is not applicable. The device is an ELISA-based diagnostic test kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting images or data with and without AI assistance. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not conducted.

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

This concept is not directly applicable in the context of this ELISA test kit. The "device" itself (the ELISA kit) is a standalone test that produces a result (OD Ratio, then converted to units and interpreted as Positive, Equivocal, or Negative). The performance reported for agreement with the predicate and clinical sensitivity/specificity is the standalone performance of the test kit against established comparative methods or clinical diagnoses. There isn't an "algorithm" in the typical sense of AI, but the assay procedure and interpretation rules define its standalone performance.

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

The ground truth used depends on the specific study:

• For comparison with the predicate device: The results from the legally marketed predicate device (Aesku, Inc. Aeskulisa ANA HEp-2) served as the comparative "ground truth."
• For clinical sensitivity and specificity: Clinical diagnoses (e.g., Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD), Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)) were used. It's implied these diagnoses were established through standard clinical practice, though the specifics of that establishment (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, specific diagnostic criteria) are not detailed in this document.
• For analytical specificity (CDC and AMLI samples): These were reference sera with known specificities, so their predefined "expected results" acted as the ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of an algorithm. For an ELISA kit, development typically involves optimizing reagents and protocols. The studies described are performance evaluation studies (test sets) rather than algorithm training.

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

As there is no "training set" in the sense of machine learning algorithms, this question is not applicable. The development of an ELISA kit involves laboratory optimization and validation, rather than learning from a labeled training dataset.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EUROIMMUN ANA Screen ELISA (IgG) is intended for the qualitative determination of IgG class antibodies against nuclear antigens (mixture of dsDNA, histones, ribosomal P-proteins, rRNP/Sm, Sm, SS-A, SS-B, Scl-70, Jo-1 and centromeres) in human serum and plasma (EDTA, Li-heparin, Citrate). It is used as an aid in the diagnosis of mixed connective tissue diseases (MCTD), systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren's syndrome, progressive systemic sclerosis and polymyositis and dermatomyositis, in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

The EUROIMMUN ANA Screen ELISA (IgG) consists of a microwell ELISA plate coated with a mixture of dsDNA, histones, ribosomal P proteins, nRNP/Sm, Sm, SS-A, SS-B, Scl-70. Jo-1 and centromeres antigens, calibrator, positive and negative control, peroxidaselabeled anti-human IgG conjugate, sample buffer, wash buffer concentrate, TMB chromogen/substrate solution and stop solution.

The EUROIMMUN ANA Screen ELISA (IgG) is a qualitative enzyme immunoassay used to detect IgG class antibodies against nuclear antigens. This device is intended as an aid in diagnosing various connective tissue diseases.

Here's an analysis of its acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the EUROIMMUN ANA Screen ELISA (IgG) are demonstrated through its analytical performance (precision/reproducibility, analytical specificity) and comparison studies (method comparison with predicate device, matrix comparison, and clinical studies for sensitivity and specificity). The reported device performance meets these criteria, supporting its substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

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

• Method Comparison Study (vs. Predicate):

  • Sample Size: 290 clinically characterized samples (158 from patients with connective tissue diseases and 132 from control groups).
  • Data Provenance: The origin of the data (e.g., country) is not explicitly stated. The study used samples from "different sources," and given it's a 510(k) submission to the FDA, it is likely that parts of the study, especially clinical correlation, would involve US data or data from regions with equivalent clinical standards. It is explicitly indicated as retrospective as the samples were "obtained from different sources".

• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Studies:

  • Sample Size:
    • Clinical Sensitivity: 429 samples from patients with various connective tissue diseases.
    • Clinical Specificity: 309 samples from control groups (celiac disease, Wegener's granulomatosis, rheumatoid arthritis, other autoimmune diseases, bacterial/viral infections).
    • Total: 738 clinically characterized samples.
  • Data Provenance: Clinical studies were performed "in cooperation with different sites." The specific countries are not mentioned. This part of the study is retrospective, as it used "clinically characterized samples" which implies they were collected and characterized prior to the study.

• Analytical Specificity (Cross-reactivity):

  • Sample Size: 82 clinically and serologically characterized samples (10 celiac, 17 Wegener's, 39 RA, 16 infectious diseases).
  • Data Provenance: Not specified, but these are identified as "clinically and serologically characterized samples," suggesting retrospective collection.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") used to establish the "ground truth" for the test set.

Instead, the ground truth for the clinical studies relies on:

• "clinically characterized samples from patients" for patients with mixed connective tissue diseases, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren's syndrome, progressive systemic sclerosis, and polymyositis/dermatomyositis.
• "clinically characterized samples" for various control groups.

This implies that the samples were classified based on established clinical diagnostic criteria, likely involving a consensus of medical specialists (e.g., rheumatologists) and potentially other laboratory findings, but the process of "ground truthing" itself is not detailed as an expert review process for each case.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for discrepancies in the test set.

• For the method comparison study, it notes that "The discrepant samples were from controls and one MCTD sample in the cut-off range." It does not specify how these discrepancies were resolved or adjudicated beyond this observation.
• For clinical sensitivity and specificity, the samples were "clinically characterized," suggesting their diagnostic status was pre-established, rather than determined by a real-time adjudication process during the study.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission is for an in vitro diagnostic device (ELISA kit), which is a laboratory test, not an imaging diagnostic device that typically involves human readers interpreting images. Therefore, the concept of human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance is not applicable here.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was done.
The entire submission details the standalone performance of the EUROIMMUN ANA Screen ELISA (IgG) through its analytical performance characteristics (precision, analytical specificity, interference) and clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) when run as an algorithm-only (kit-only) test. The results are reported as the device's inherent capability to detect ANA antibodies and correlate with clinical disease.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for both the method comparison and clinical studies was based on:

• Clinical Characterization: Samples were derived from "clinically characterized patients" and "control groups." This means the diagnosis of the patients (e.g., systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren's syndrome) and the health status of controls were established through standard clinical diagnostic procedures, likely involving a combination of clinical symptoms, physical examination, and other laboratory or imaging tests, according to medical guidelines.
• Serological Characterization: For the cross-reactivity study, samples were "clinically and serologically characterized," indicating that their antibody status for other conditions (e.g., celiac disease, ANCA, anti-CCP) was already known.
• Predicate Device Comparison: For the method comparison, the predicate device's results served as a comparison point, but the ultimate ground truth for the samples themselves was still their clinical status.

It does not rely on pathology, expert consensus on images (as it's not an imaging device), or direct patient outcomes data as the primary ground truth, but rather on established clinical diagnoses.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI development. This device is an ELISA kit, which is a chemical assay, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The performance characteristics are established through validation studies using defined sample cohorts, not through an iterative training process.

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

As noted above, the concept of a "training set" is not applicable to this type of device. The ground truth for the samples used in the validation studies was established through:

• Clinical Characterization: As described in point 7, samples were from patients with established clinical diagnoses and controls, determined through standard medical practice.
• External Reference Panels/Characterized Samples: The reproducibility studies used samples with "expected results" (negative or positive), and analytical specificity studies used "clinically and serologically characterized samples" or CDC ANA reference panels. This indicates that these samples were pre-defined with known characteristics based on previous clinical and/or laboratory evaluations.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Screen EIA kit is designed for the qualitative determination of eight antinuclear antibodies in human serum or plasma (citrate/EDTA) to aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases such as SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus), scleroderma (progressive systemic sclerosis), MCTD (mixed connective tissue disease), SS (Sjögren's syndrome) and polymyositis/ dermatomyositis. The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Screen detects antibodies against dsDNA, UIRNP (RNP70, A, C), Sm, SS-A/Ro (52 kDa,60 kDa), SS-B/La, Scl-70, CENP-B and Jo-1 in a single microwell.

The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Screen is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the qualitative determination of antinuclear antibodies in serum and plasma (citrate/EDTA). Designed as a screening assay, it detects eight antinuclear antibodies in a single microwell. The determination of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) is of central importance for the clinical diagnosis of rheumatic diseases. The presence of ANA suggests the possibility of rheumatic autoimmune diseases, These diseases include Systemic Lupus Erythemtosus (SLE), Polymyositis/ Dematomyositis, Scleroderma, Sjögren's Syndrome and Mixed Conective Tissue Diseases.

The provided text does not contain a specific study designed to establish acceptance criteria for the Varelisa ReCombi ANA Screen device. Instead, it focuses on the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K993108) and describes laboratory data supporting this equivalence. The FDA letter confirms the substantial equivalence determination but does not detail a separate study proving the device meets explicit acceptance criteria in the format requested.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be directly populated from the provided documents.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., specific sensitivity, specificity, or agreement thresholds) that the new device needed to meet. Instead, it relies on demonstrating comparable performance to the predicate device.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: "150 disease controls and 103 CTD samples."
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It indicates that the data includes "clinically defined sera and for international reference sera" and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)," suggesting a mix of sources. It's a retrospective analysis, comparing the new device's results to the predicate device and established serum characteristics.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The "ground truth" seems to be established by the clinical definition of the sera (e.g., "clinically defined sera," "disease controls," "CTD samples") and international reference sera.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

This information is not provided in the 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 is not applicable. The device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay for qualitative determination of antibodies, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that humans would "read." It produces a quantitative result (OD at 450 nm and 620 nm) that is interpreted qualitatively.

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

This is implicitly a standalone device. As an IVD assay, the device itself provides the result based on the biochemical reaction and optical density measurement. There isn't a "human-in-the-loop" component in the sense of a human interpreting complex images or data that the device first processes. The interpretation is of the assay's output.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The ground truth appears to be based on:

• Clinical Diagnosis: For "clinically defined sera," "disease controls," and "CTD samples," the ground truth is their established clinical diagnosis.
• International Reference Sera: These typically have well-characterized antibody profiles that serve as a ground truth for comparison.
• Healthy Controls: Samples from "apparently healthy subjects" serve as a negative ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not provided. The document describes a comparison study for validation of the new device's performance against the predicate, rather than a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning. The "development" of the new device (e.g., choice of recombinant antigens, synthetic peptides) would have occurred prior, potentially using other samples, but details are not given.

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

This information is not provided as a separate "training set" is not explicitly mentioned in the context of the performance validation study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen EIA kit is designed for the qualitative determination of ten antinuclear antibodies in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases such as SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus), drug-induced lupus, scleroderma (progressive systemic sclerosis), MCTD (mixed connective tissue disease), SS (Sjögren's syndrome) and polymyositis/dermatomyositis. The Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen detects antibodies against dsDNA, RNP (RNP70,A,C), Sm (B,B',D), SS-A/Ro(52 kDa,60 kDa), SS-B/La, Scl-70, CENP-B, Histone, Ribosomal P Protein and Jo-1 in a single microwell.

The new device is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using microtiter plates as the solid phase. The plate wells are coated with antinuclear antigens, which allow anti-nuclear antibodies (sample) to react with the immobilized antigens. The conjugate is rabbit anti-human IgG horseradish peroxidase (HRP), which uses 3, 3'5, 5' tetramethylbenzidine dihydrochloride (TMB) as substrate. The kit contains calibrator and negative control. The kit also contains sample diluent, wash buffer concentrate and stop solution.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen, organized according to your requested information:

Device Acceptance Criteria and Performance Study

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "sensitivity must be > X%" or "specificity must be > Y%") for the Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen. Instead, the study aims to demonstrate laboratory equivalence and substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Varelisa® ReCombi ANA Screen K993108). The performance metrics reported are focused on the agreement between the new device's results and clinical definitions of samples, compared to the predicate device.

Implicit Acceptance Criteria (based on the provided information):

• Substantial Equivalence: The primary "acceptance criterion" is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device. This is achieved through comparability in intended use, assay principle, and performance characteristics.
• Comparable Performance: The agreement rates for both positive (CTD) and negative (control) samples should be comparable to the predicate device, with differences falling within acceptable confidence intervals (though specific thresholds for these intervals are not explicitly stated as acceptance criteria). The presented data suggests the differences are deemed acceptable for substantial equivalence.
• "Performs according to state-of-the-art expectations": This is a qualitative statement in the summary implying that the device's overall performance is considered modern and effective for its purpose.

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

• Test Set Size:
  • Clinical Samples: 183 CTD (Connective Tissue Disease) samples.
  • Control/Negative Samples: 100 disease controls, plus "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)" (specific number not given for the normal population, but the "100 disease controls" are used for the negative agreement calculation).
  • Total: At least 283 samples (183 CTD + 100 disease controls). The text also mentions "clinically defined sera and for international reference sera" and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)," suggesting the reported numbers might be a subset of a broader validation set.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the manufacturer is based in Germany, implying the study could have been conducted there or in collaboration with other European institutions. The mention of "international reference sera" suggests a diverse set of samples. The study appears to be retrospective, as it analyzed "results obtained for clinically defined sera."

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

The document does not specify the "number of experts" or their "qualifications" involved in establishing the ground truth. It refers to "clinically defined sera" and "clinical definitions of samples," implying that the ground truth for CTD status (positive/negative) was established through clinical diagnosis, likely by physicians or rheumatologists, based on a comprehensive set of clinical criteria, medical history, and other diagnostic tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The adjudication method is not explicitly described. Given that the ground truth is derived from "clinical definitions," it likely represents a consensus clinical impression rather than a specific adjudication process between multiple readers of the assay results.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not performed. This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit for lab testing, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that helps human readers interpret images or complex data. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" does not apply to this submission.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was conducted. The reported "Agreement (%)" for both positive and negative samples (87.4% and 79.0%, respectively) represents the performance of the Varelisa ReCombi CTD Screen itself when tested against clinically defined samples, without human intervention in the result interpretation beyond standard lab protocols for reading ELISA plates (e.g., using a microplate reader). The ELISA kit itself is the "algorithm" in this context.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was clinical definitions/diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases. The text mentions "clinically defined sera" and "clinical definitions of samples," indicating that the diagnosis of CTD (or lack thereof for control samples) was established through medical evaluation of patients.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a training set size. This is common for traditional IVD kits as their development often involves iterative optimization and validation rather than a distinct "training set" in the machine learning sense. The "development" of the new device is mentioned in comparison to the predicate, implying an engineering and chemistry-focused development process rather than algorithmic training.

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

Since a specific "training set" is not mentioned, the method for establishing ground truth for such a set is also not specified. If any internal validation or optimization was done during development, the ground truth would likely have been established similarly to the test set: through clinical definitions and classification of samples.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile EIA kit is designed for the qualitative determination of eight antinuclear antibodies in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of SLE (systemic lupus erythematosus), scleroderma (progressive systemic sclerosis and CREST syndrome), MCTD (mixed connective tissue disease), SS (Sjögren's syndrome) and polymyositis/dermatomyositis. The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile individually detects antibodies against dsDNA, U1 RNP (RNP 70 kDa,A,C), SmD, SS-A/Ro(52 kDa, 60 kDa), SS-B/La, Scl-70, CENP-B and Jo-1.

The new device is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using microtiter plates as the solid phase. Plate wells each coated with 1 of 8 different ANA antigens are included to allow corresponding antibodies in the patient samples react with the immobilized antigens. The conjugate is rabbit anti-human IgG horseradish peroxidase (HRP), which uses 3, 3'5, 5' tetramethylbenzidine dihydrochloride (TMB) as substrate. The kit contains a calibrator and a negative control. The kit also contains sample diluent, wash buffer concentrate and stop solution.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria for the Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices through comparability studies. Therefore, reported device performance is framed in terms of agreement with predicate devices and established reference standards.

• results obtained within a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal, and negative sera.
• results obtained for international reference sera.
• results obtained for samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population). |

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

The document mentions "a comparison study analyzing positive, equivocal and negative sera" and "samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)" but does not specify the exact sample size for the test set or the country of origin of the data. It can be inferred that the data is retrospective as it refers to a "comparison study" and "available data," suggesting pre-collected samples.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth. The nature of the device (an immunoassay for antibody detection) suggests that ground truth would likely be established through clinical diagnosis of autoimmune diseases or by established reference methods for antibody detection, rather than expert interpretation of images or complex data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not provide information on any adjudication method used for the test set.

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

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is more relevant for diagnostic devices that rely on human interpretation of images or complex data, where the AI might assist a reader. The Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile is an automated immunoassay where the output is a qualitative determination (positive/negative) based on optical density readings, not a human interpretation task.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

Yes, a standalone performance study was done implicitly. The entire evaluation described for the Varelisa ReCombi ANA Profile relates to its performance as a standalone assay, comparing its results directly to predicate devices and reference materials. The device is the algorithm, producing results without human-in-the-loop assistance for interpretation of the test itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used appears to be a composite of:

• Clinical Diagnosis: The intended use states the kit "aids in the diagnosis of SLE... scleroderma... MCTD... SS and polymyositis/dermatomyositis," implying that patient samples from individuals with confirmed diagnoses of these conditions would serve as ground truth for "positive" samples.
• Established Reference Materials: The study mentions "results obtained for international reference sera," indicating that recognized standard antibody preparations were used as ground truth.
• Predicate Device Results (as a gold standard proxy): A significant part of the study involves comparing the new device's results to those obtained with the predicate devices for positive, equivocal, and negative sera. This suggests the predicate device's performance served as a de-facto "ground truth" for demonstrating equivalence.
• Healthy Controls: "Samples from apparently healthy subjects (normal population)" were used to establish negative ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a training set or its sample size. This is typical for a traditional immunoassay device. "Training" in the context of an AI/ML device would refer to the data used to develop the algorithm. For this device, the "algorithm" is the biochemical assay itself and its reading protocol, not a machine learning model that learns from large datasets. The development process would involve optimization and validation runs rather than distinct "training" and "test" sets in the AI sense.

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

As no training set is mentioned in the AI/ML context, this question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the development of the assay would have been established through a combination of chemical and biological principles, known antibody-antigen reactions, and clinical validation against diagnosed patient samples and controls, rather than a specific "ground truth for a training set."

Ask a specific question about this device

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the detection of antinuclear and cytoplasmic antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Sjögren's Syndrome (SS), Mixed Connective Tissue Disease (MCTD), and Scleroderma.

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA)

Here's an analysis of the provided text to extract the requested information about device acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria:

Device Name: ImmuLisa Antinuclear Antibody Screen ELISA
Regulation Number: 21 CFR § 866.5100
Regulation Name: Antinuclear Antibody Immunological Test System
Regulatory Class: II
Product Code: LJM

Based on the provided text, the document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA. This type of document declares "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device but does not typically contain the detailed acceptance criteria or the full study protocols and results. The letter mentions that the device is substantially equivalent "for the indications for use stated in the enclosure," but the enclosure itself (page 2 of the document) only lists the Indications for Use, not specific performance acceptance criteria.

Therefore, much of the requested information cannot be directly extracted from this document. However, I can infer some aspects based on the nature of a 510(k) submission for an ELISA diagnostic.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the document. A 510(k) clearance letter typically states the device is substantially equivalent, implying that its performance meets the standards comparable to a predicate device, but it doesn't detail the specific criteria or the results against them.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document only states the device's indications for use.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the document.

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

This information is not provided in the document. Given that this is an ELISA diagnostic (a laboratory test that directly measures antibodies), a MRMC study, which typically involves human readers interpreting images, is unlikely to be the primary method for demonstrating effectiveness. Performance for such devices is usually assessed through analytical and clinical precision, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity studies.

6. Standalone Performance Study

While not explicitly stated as "standalone performance study," the entire 510(k) submission for an ELISA likely includes analytical and clinical performance data for the algorithm/test itself (without human interpretation in the loop, beyond running the test and reading the quantitative results). However, the specific details of such a study are not included in this clearance letter.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

This information is not provided in the document. For an ELISA for autoimmune diseases, ground truth would typically be established by a combination of clinical diagnosis (based on symptoms and other tests), and potentially other reference assays or biopsy/pathology for specific conditions if applicable.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided in the document. Training sets are more relevant for machine learning algorithms; for a traditional ELISA, "training" isn't applicable in the same sense, though assay development and optimization phases would involve extensive testing.

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

This information is not provided in the document. (See point 8).

Summary of Document Contents Regarding Acceptance Criteria and Study Details:

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the ImmuLisa Antinuclear Antibody Screen ELISA. It confirms the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device for its stated Indications for Use. However, the letter does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or the specifics of the studies (like sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, or detailed performance metrics) that led to this clearance. These details would typically be found in the full 510(k) submission document, which is not provided here.

Ask a specific question about this device