Search Results

EliA RNA Pol III is intended for the in vitro semi-quantitative measurement of IgG antibodies directed to RNA polymerase III (RNA Pol III) in human serum as an aid in the diagnosis of systemic sclerosis (diffuse form) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA RNA Pol III uses the EliA IgG method.

EliA RNA Pol III is a semi-quantitative solid-phase fluoroenzymeimmunoassay, for the determination of autoantibodies against RNA polymerase III. The EliA RNA Pol III test System is fully integrated and automated system which comprises of assay-specific reagents, EliA method-specific reagents, and general reagents.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the EliA RNA Pol III device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

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

• Test Set (Method Comparison with Predicate Device):
  • Sample Size: 193 patient serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but includes 126 samples with a diagnosis of SSc. The context suggests these are clinical samples.
• Test Set (Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity):
  • Sample Size: 596 clinically defined serum samples.
  • Data Provenance: Clinically defined samples from patients with various diagnoses, including Systemic Sclerosis (diffuse and limited forms), and various control diseases/conditions (e.g., Celiac disease, Crohn's disease, SLE, RA, bacterial/viral infections). The text does not specify country of origin or if prospective/retrospective; however, "clinically defined serum samples" typically implies retrospective collection with known diagnoses.
• Test Set (Assay Cut-Off):
  • Sample Size: 70 apparently healthy blood donor samples and 17 target disease (Systemic Sclerosis, diffuse) samples.
  • Data Provenance: "apparently healthy blood donor samples" and "target disease samples" (Systemic Sclerosis, diffuse). The text explicitly mentions "sera from Caucasian, African American, Hispanic and Asian population obtained from a blood bank" for the frequency distribution, which likely overlaps with the "apparently healthy blood donor samples" used for cut-off establishment.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth (Test Set):

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The wording "clinically defined serum samples with a diagnosis" implies that the diagnoses used as ground truth were established clinically by medical professionals, but their specific roles, number, or years of experience are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method (Test Set):

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. The diagnostic labels for the clinical samples are presented as established fact without mention of an adjudication process.

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

• Was an MRMC study done? No. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay designed for automated measurement of antibodies, not for interpretation by human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study regarding human reader improvement with AI assistance is not applicable.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:

• Was a standalone study done? Yes. The entire performance evaluation, including analytical performance, method comparison, and clinical sensitivity/specificity, evaluates the performance of the EliA RNA Pol III assay itself (the "algorithm only" in this context, as it's an automated system) without human interpretation as part of the primary measurement. The results are generated directly by the instrument.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For Method Comparison: The ground truth was the results from the predicate device, QUANTA LITE RNA POL III ELISA.
• For Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity: The ground truth was clinical diagnosis ("clinically defined serum samples with a diagnosis from patients with systemic sclerosis, diffuse," etc.).
• For Assay Cut-Off: The ground truth was based on apparently healthy blood donors and clinically diagnosed Systemic Sclerosis, diffuse patients.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Training Set (Assay Cut-Off establishment): This involved 70 apparently healthy blood donor samples and 17 target disease (Systemic Sclerosis, diffuse) samples. While not explicitly called a "training set," these samples were used to "define the cut-off," which is a form of model training/optimization for classification.
• Other "training" data: The document mentions that "New batches of IgG calibrators are compared to a secondary standard (standardized with the IRP) or the IRP directly and adjusted accordingly to meet the correct concentration." This implies a continuous process of calibration and standardization, where previous data/standards (IRP) could be considered a form of "training" for the calibrators. However, a distinct, large-scale training set for an AI/algorithm in the conventional sense is not detailed as this is a chemical assay.

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

• For Assay Cut-Off establishment: The ground truth for the 70 apparently healthy blood donors means they were confirmed healthy (presumably through standard screening). For the 17 Systemic Sclerosis (diffuse) samples, the ground truth was their clinical diagnosis.
• For Calibrators: The ground truth for calibrators is established through their traceability to the International Reference Preparation (IRP) 67/86 of Human Serum Immunoglobulins A, G and M from WHO.

Ask a specific question about this device

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of anti-RNA POL III IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis of systemic scleroderma) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

An enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of anti-RNA POL III IgG antibodies in human serum as an aid in diagnosis (scleroderma) in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. This test is performed as a solid phase immunoassay. Microwells are coated with recombinant RNA POLIII antigen. Controls, calibrators and patient sera are incubated in the antigen coated wells to allow specific antibodies present in the RNA POL III antigen. Bound antibodies are detected by adding an enzyme labeled anti-human IgG conjugate. Specific enzyme substrate (TMB) is then added and the presence of antibodies is detected 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 to extract the acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a formal table format with target performance values. Instead, it presents various performance characteristics and their corresponding results. I will infer the acceptance criteria from the reported performance, implying that these results met the manufacturer's internal criteria for substantial equivalence.

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

• Method Comparison Test Set: 413 samples (52 positive, 361 negative, based on the predicate device).
  • Data Provenance: "well-characterized systemic sclerosis subjects and disease controls." The country of origin is not specified but implicitly North America (given the US FDA submission). Retrospective, as these were "well-characterized" samples.
• Cross-Reactivity Test Set:
  • Systemic Sclerosis (SSc): 281 samples
  • Diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc): 105 samples
  • Limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc): 176 samples
  • Various autoimmune and infectious disease controls, and cancer patients: 549 samples in total across 22 different categories (sample sizes per category detailed in the table, e.g., SLE: 40, Sjögren's: 41, etc.).
  • Data Provenance: Clinical samples. Country of origin not specified. Retrospective, as they were "sets of clinical samples" collected and tested.
• Clinical Study Test Set:
  • 281 systemic sclerosis samples
  • 549 autoimmune and infectious disease controls (the same breakdown as the Cross-Reactivity section).
  • Data Provenance: Clinical samples. Country of origin not specified. Retrospective.

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 of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth for any of the test sets. For the "Method Comparison," it refers to "well-characterized systemic sclerosis subjects and disease controls," implying a clinical diagnosis as the ground truth, likely established by medical professionals. For "Cross Reactivity" and "Clinical Study," it refers to "clinical samples" and "autoimmune and infectious disease controls," which implicitly means ground truth was based on established clinical diagnoses.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not explicitly stated. Given that the ground truth for method comparison relied on a predicate device and for cross-reactivity/clinical study on "clinical samples" and "disease controls," it's highly probable that the ground truth was established by clinical diagnosis, which often involves a consensus among treating physicians or established diagnostic criteria rather than a dedicated adjudication process for the purpose of this study.

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 device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) ELISA test, not an AI-powered image analysis or diagnostic support tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device and was not performed or reported.

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

This device is a standalone in-vitro diagnostic test. Its performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, agreement with predicate, precision, etc.) are all based on its own intrinsic performance, without any human-in-the-loop interpretation impacting these reported analytical and clinical performance characteristics. So, yes, a standalone performance was done for the device itself.

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

• Method Comparison Test Set: The ground truth was based on the performance of a legally marketed predicate device, the INOVA QUANTA Lite™ RNA POL III ELISA, and "well-characterized systemic sclerosis subjects and disease controls," implying clinical diagnosis.
• Cross-Reactivity and Clinical Study Test Sets: The ground truth was based on the clinical diagnosis of the patients from whom the samples were obtained ("Systemic sclerosis," "Systemic lupus erythematosus," "Sjögren's syndrome," etc.), and the characterization of "autoimmune and infectious disease controls." This points to clinical diagnosis (and possibly expert medical consensus) 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 device development. Given that this is an ELISA kit, which is a chemical assay, it does not typically involve machine learning algorithms that require distinct training and test sets in the same way an AI-driven device would. The development samples and internal validation studies would likely fall under what could be considered "training" or optimization, but a specific "training set" size is not reported as it would be for an AI model.

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

As mentioned above, a formal "training set" as understood in AI/ML contexts is not directly applicable here. The development and optimization of the ELISA assay would typically involve extensive testing with known positive and negative controls, and clinical samples previously characterized by established diagnostic methods (e.g., other validated tests, clinical diagnosis) to refine the assay parameters (e.g., antibody concentrations, incubation times, cutoff values). This characterization would rely on standard clinical diagnostic practices and existing reference methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The QUANTA Lite™ RNA Pol III ELISA is a semiquantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of IgG anti-RNA Polymerase III antibodies in patient sera. The presence of these antibodies, when considered in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings, is an aid in the diagnosis of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) with increased incidence of skin involvement and renal crisis.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA for the QUANTA Lite™ RNA Polymerase III device. It states that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. However, this document does not contain the detailed study information, acceptance criteria, or performance data typically included in a study report or clinical trial summary.

Therefore, I cannot fully complete your request based solely on the provided text. The letter confirms the device's regulatory status and intended use but does not elaborate on the specific study details you've asked for.

To address your request, I will extract the information that is available and indicate where the requested information is not provided in this document.

Here's an attempt to answer your questions based on the provided FDA letter:

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

Explanation: This letter is an FDA clearance letter, not a detailed study report. It does not contain specific acceptance criteria or performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) used in the validation study. It only states that the device was found "substantially equivalent" to predicate devices.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not provided.
• Data Provenance (e.g., country of origin): Not provided.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not provided.

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)

• Number of Experts: Not provided.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not provided.

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

• Adjudication Method: 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

• This device, the QUANTA Lite™ RNA Polymerase III ELISA, is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) immunoassay for detecting antibodies, not an AI-powered image analysis tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device.

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

• This is an immunoassay kit. Its "performance" would be evaluated in a standalone manner (i.e., the assay itself produces results), but the concept of "algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance" as typically applied to AI/software clinical decision support systems is not directly applicable here. The device performs its function to detect antibodies, and the results are then interpreted by a healthcare professional in conjunction with other clinical findings. The study would have evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the assay itself.

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

• For an immunoassay like this, the ground truth for clinical performance studies would typically involve:

  • Clinical diagnosis: Confirmation of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) based on established clinical criteria (e.g., ACR/EULAR criteria).
  • Reference laboratory methods: Comparison to a gold standard or well-established reference method for RNA Polymerase III antibodies, if one exists and is widely accepted.
  • Patient outcomes data: While not the primary ground truth for assay performance, patient outcomes (e.g., progression of skin involvement, renal crisis) are relevant for validating the clinical utility of the antibody as an "aid in diagnosis."

• Specifics in the document: Not provided.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not provided. (This device is an immunoassay, not a machine learning algorithm that typically undergoes a distinct "training" phase in the same way. Its development would involve assay optimization and validation.)

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable in the context of a machine learning training set for this type of IVD immunoassay. Assay development and optimization involve extensive analytical and clinical validation, but not "training" in the AI sense.

Summary of missing information:

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter. It confirms regulatory approval based on "substantial equivalence" but does not contain the detailed technical and clinical study data (acceptance criteria, performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth methodology, expert qualification, adjudication methods) that would be found in a full study report or the 510(k) submission itself. To get that level of detail, one would typically need to review the actual 510(k) submission available through FDA databases or directly from the manufacturer.

Ask a specific question about this device

The anti-RNA Polymerase III ELISA Kit is a semi-quantitative, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of anti-RNA Polymerase III antibodies in human serum. The test result is used as an aid in the diagnosis of Systemic Sclerosis (SSc) in conjunction with the clinical and other laboratory findings. The anti-RNA Polymerase III ELISA Kit is intended for in-vitro diagnostic use.

This device is an aid to the diagnosis of SSc. Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is an autoimmune disease characterized by microvascular damage and fibrosis of the skin and internal organs. RNA polymerase(RNAP) I, II and III are major targets of autoantibody responses in SSc patients. Each RNAP catalyzes transcription of unique sets of genes: RNAP I transcribes ribosomal RNA genes, RNAP II transcribes all protein coding genes and several small nuclear RNA genes, and RNAP III transcribes genes that produce small stable RNAs including 5S and transfer RNAs. Anti-RNAP I and anti-RNAP III antibodies are almost always present together (anti-RNAP I/II), and some sera contain anti-RNAP II antibody as well. Anti-RNAP I/II antibodies are the most common SSc related antibodies in white North American patients with SSc and is associated with diffuse cutaneous involvement, a high frequency of "renal crisis", and high mortality. In addition, it has been shown that some SSc sera contain autoantibodies recognizing RNAP II but not RNAP I or III. Antibodies to RNAP II are also present in sera from some patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or overlap syndrome. PRINCIPLE: The anti-RNA Polymerase III ELISA Kit measures anti-RNAP III antibodies present in the serum by ELISA. Diluted Calibrators and patient serum are added to microwell coated with RNAP III antigens, allowing anti-RNAP III antibodies to react with the immobilized antigen (Sample incubation). After washing to remove any unbound serum proteins, horseradish peroxidase conjugated anti human IgG is added and incubated (Conjugate incubation). Following another washing step, the peroxidase substrate is added and incubated for an additional period of time (Substrate incubation). Acid solution is then added to each well to terminate the enzyme reaction and to stabilize the color development. The assay can be quantified by measuring the reaction photometrically and plotting the results.

The provided text doesn't contain specific acceptance criteria with quantifiable metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity thresholds) or a detailed study description with performance metrics for the MBL Anti-RNA Polymerase III ELISA Kit. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on general characteristics and clinical utility.

However, based on the information provided, here's what can be extracted and inferred regarding acceptance criteria and the study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "sensitivity must be >X%"). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the claim of substantial equivalence to predicate devices and the performance characteristics established by comparison with a research method (Immunoprecipitation).

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the sample size used for the clinical trial or test set. It only mentions "clinical trial."
• Data Provenance: The document does not state the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. It just refers to "clinical and non-clinical testing data."

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

• Number of Experts: This information is not provided.
• Qualifications of Experts: This information is not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided.

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

• The document does not indicate that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done.
• It refers to "comparison with a research method, Immunoprecipitation, AND K972145, HEP-2000 FLUORESCENT ANA-RO TEST SYSTEM." This suggests a direct comparison of the device's results against a gold standard/reference method and a predicate device, rather than an evaluation of human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance assessment was done. The entire premise of an ELISA kit is to provide a diagnostic result from the assay itself. The "clinical trial via comparison with a research method, Immunoprecipitation" directly evaluates the performance of the kit (the "algorithm only") against a known reference. There is no human-in-the-loop component mentioned for interpreting the ELISA results beyond standard laboratory practices.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The primary ground truth used for performance validation was a research method, Immunoprecipitation. This is commonly considered a highly specific and sensitive "gold standard" for detecting autoantibodies in research and some clinical settings.
• Additionally, comparison was made against K972145, HEP-2000 FLUORESCENT ANA-RO TEST SYSTEM, which is an indirect fluorescent antibody test for antinuclear antibodies, likely serving as another comparator or a secondary form of reference for general ANA detection, although Immunoprecipitation is the more specific reference for anti-RNA Polymerase III.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a training set size. This is common for traditional in-vitro diagnostic kits like ELISA, where algorithms are not "trained" in the machine learning sense. The kit's performance characteristics are inherent to its biochemical design and manufacturing, and validated through clinical trials, without a distinct "training set" of patient data for algorithm development.

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 algorithm, there's no information on how its ground truth was established. The development of the ELISA kit (e.g., choice of antigens, antibodies, assay conditions) would be based on scientific understanding of anti-RNA Polymerase III antibodies and their detection, rather than an iterative training process with labeled data. The validation (test set) uses Immunoprecipitation as the ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device