Search Results

The Wako LBA DCP immunological test system is an in vitro device that consists of reagents and an automated instrument used to quantitatively measure by immunochemical techniques DCP in human serum. The device is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aid in the risk assessment of patients with chronic liver disease for progression to hepatocellular carcinoma in conjunction with other laboratory findings, imaging studies and clinical assessment.

The Wako LBA DCP immunological test system is an in vitro device that consists of reagents and an automated instrument used to quantitatively measure by immunochemical techniques DCP in human serum. The Wako LBA DCP assay is test kit for the quantitative determination of DCP based on a new method, LBA (Liquid-phase Binding Assay). The method uses a liquid-phase binding reaction between antigen and antibody and separates bound and free forms by column chromatography without a need for a solid phase. LBA DCP can offer fully automatic and highly precise DCP measurement by using an automated analyzer "LiBASys". This reagent consists of anti-DCP monoclonal antibodies and anti-Prothrombin monoclonal antibodies which are used as Fab' molecules and a substrate for fluorophotometric measurement.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Wako LBA DCP immunological test system, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document defines the device's utility in terms of its ability to identify patients at risk of developing HCC. A specific threshold for DCP concentration (≥ 7.5 ng/mL) is used to categorize risk. The primary performance metric presented is the relative risk.

The study demonstrates that an elevated DCP level (≥ 7.5 ng/mL) is associated with a 4.8-fold increased risk of developing HCC, with a 36.5% risk in the elevated group versus a 7.6% risk in the non-elevated group.

Study Details

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

   • Total Subjects: 441
   • Subjects included in the primary analysis table: 316 (excluding "Suspicious" cases from the main risk calculation table)
   • Males: 324
   • Females: 117
   • Data Provenance: The document states "Longitudinal data was collected," implying prospective or retrospectively analyzed longitudinal data. The country of origin is not explicitly stated in the provided text.

2. 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 given text. The ground truth is defined as "HCC" or "No HCC," but the method of establishing this diagnosis and the involvement or qualifications of experts are not described.

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

   • This information is not provided in the given text.

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:

   • A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed, nor is it applicable. The Wako LBA DCP system is an in vitro diagnostic device for quantitative measurement of a biomarker, not an imaging or interpretive AI system that would assist human readers. It provides a numerical result (DCP concentration) to aid in risk assessment.

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

   • Yes, a standalone performance study was done for the device in its intended use. The device quantitatively measures DCP, and the risk assessment is based directly on this numerical output compared to a threshold (≥ 7.5 ng/mL). The performance metrics (relative risk, risk percentages) are derived from the device's output.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • The ground truth used is "HCC" (Hepatocellular Carcinoma) or "No HCC." This would typically be established by clinical diagnosis, including imaging, biopsy/histopathology, and other clinical assessments, but the specific methods are not detailed in the provided text. It is presented as clinical outcomes data.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The provided document describes a "Longitudinal data" study of 441 subjects used to evaluate the device's performance. It does not explicitly mention a separate "training set" for the device's development or for establishing the 7.5 ng/mL threshold. The data presented appear to be from a single evaluation cohort.

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

   • As no separate training set is explicitly identified, the method for establishing ground truth for the "training set" is not described. For the evaluation data, the ground truth ("HCC" or "No HCC") would have been established through clinical diagnosis, as mentioned in point 6, but the specifics are absent.

Ask a specific question about this device