Search Results

Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay, a prescription device under 21 CFR Part 801.109 that is indicated for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in human fecal samples collected from patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). The test utilizes automated blocked primer enabled helicase-dependent amplification (bpHDA) to detect toxin gene sequences associated with toxin producing C. difficile. The Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of CDI.

The Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay as run on the Portrait Analyzer is a bench top fully automated in vitro diagnostics system that includes the Portrait Analyzer, control Laptop PC and single-use Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Test Cartridges and sample preparation apparatus. The Portrait Analyzer is designed to perform automated sample extraction; blocked primer mediated thermophilic helicasedependent amplification (bpHDA); and chip-based detection with integrated data analysis in approximately 85 minutes.

The sample to be tested is inserted into the sample preparation that has been preloaded with buffer and briefly vortexed. The vortexed mixture is then loaded into the assay cartridge. The cartridge is loaded into the Portrait Analyzer which performs extraction (cell lysing), amplification, hybridization and signal formation on the detection chip. The resulting signal(s) are detected and interpreted by the automated Portrait Analyzer.

In addition to the necessary probes and primers to detect the presence of tcdB (toxin B gene) performance of the Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay includes an integrated SPC to insure the adequate processing of the sample during preparation and subsequent extraction and amplification steps.

Here's an analysis of the Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay's acceptance criteria and the study proving it meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Portrait Toxigenic C. difficile Assay

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in a table format for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV. However, the reported clinical performance implicitly serves as the criteria the device met for de novo classification. The reproducibility and precision studies also have implicit agreement rate criteria that were "within the expected percent." For this table, I will present the reported clinical performance statistics.

Reproducibility Study Results (Agreement)

Precision Study Results (Agreement)

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

• Test Set Sample Size (Clinical Evaluation): 540 eligible specimens.
• Data Provenance: The clinical evaluation was a "multi-site clinical evaluation at 4 US institutions." This indicates prospective data collection for the clinical study directly comparing the device to the reference method.

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

The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing the ground truth for the clinical test set. The ground truth method, "reference culture/cell cytotoxicity (TBC/CCNA) testing," implies laboratory testing rather than expert consensus on interpretation.

For the Reproducibility Study:

• Site 1 (external): Dr. Gerald Denys, PI (Principal Investigator)
• Site 4 (external): Dr. Nate Ledeboer, PI (Principal Investigator)
• The document implies that these PIs oversaw the testing at their respective sites, but it doesn't state they were involved in establishing the ground truth for a test set. Rather, they likely ensured proper execution of the reproducibility protocol.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method for establishing the ground truth for the clinical test set. The ground truth was based on "reference culture/cell cytotoxicity (TBC/CCNA) testing."

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 study compares the device's performance against a reference laboratory method (TBC/CCNA), not against human readers or with AI assistance to human readers.

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

Yes, the primary clinical study is a standalone (algorithm only) performance evaluation. The "Portrait toxigenic C. difficile Assay" (the device/algorithm) was directly compared to the "reference culture/cell cytotoxicity (TBC/CCNA) testing." The results (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) are for the device acting on its own.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The ground truth used for the clinical test set was reference laboratory testing, specifically "reference culture/cell cytotoxicity (TBC/CCNA) testing." This is a gold standard diagnostic method for C. difficile infection.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information regarding a specific training set or its sample size. This is typical for in vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices where the device development often involves internal optimization and verification using various strains and analytical samples (as described in the nonclinical studies), rather than a distinct "training set" in the machine learning sense. The non-clinical studies detail testing with 44 additional toxigenic C. difficile strains and other microorganisms for analytical performance.

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

As no specific "training set" is described in the provided text in the context of machine learning, there is no information on how its ground truth was established. The analytical performance studies (LoD, cross-reactivity) used known strains and concentrations, where the "ground truth" was inherently defined by the composition of the tested samples.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Focus Diagnostics Simplexa™ C. difficile Universal Direct is a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay and is intended for use on the 3M Integrated Cycler instrument for the detection of toxigenic Clostridium difficile toxin B gene (tcdB) in liquid or unformed stool samples from individuals suspected of C. difficile infection. This test aids in the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile associated disease (CDAD).

The test is a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification system that utilizes bifunctional fluorescent probe-primers for the detection of C. difficile in liquid or unformed stool. The Simplexa™ C. difficile Universal Direct kit contains primes, buffers and controls. The assay is composed of two principal steps: (1) Heat treatment of stool samples, (2) Amplification of the C. difficile DNA and internal control DNA using bi-functional fluorescent probe-primers together with reverse primers. The DNA internal control is used to monitor potential presence of PCR inhibitors. The assay targets a sequence which is in a well conserved region of C. difficile toxin B gene (tcdB).

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: For clinical performance, the acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated as numerical targets within the document provided. Instead, the performance is reported and implicitly compared to predicate devices or considered acceptable for the intended use. The reproducibility acceptance criteria are inferred from the 100% or >90% agreement shown in the predicate device data section of the comparison table.

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

• Reproducibility: A "panel" of contrived samples (high negative, medium positive) spiked with C. difficile bacterial stock was used. For each of the three sites, the Low Positive, Positive Control, High Negative, and No Template Control samples were tested in 30 replicates each (with 29 replicates for one medium positive sample at one site).
• Limit of Detection (LoD): The LoD was determined using three replicates in an initial screening phase, followed by confirmation using twenty replicates for two C. difficile bacterial strains.
• Analytical Reactivity: 20 different C. difficile strains were tested, each in triplicate.
• Cross-Reactivity: A total of 119 potential cross-reactants were tested. Each cross-reactant and baseline sample was tested in multiple replicates (implied at least 3, as mentioned in the interference section that "One replicate reported as "Invalid"... in initial run of three replicates").
• Interference: 21 potentially interfering substances were spiked into low positive C. difficile samples and tested. The results typically show 3/3 replicates detected for each substance and strain, with some exceptions tested in 5/5 or with repeat runs for invalid/not detected results.
• Clinical Studies: A total of 970 prospectively collected stool specimens were obtained.
  • Data Provenance:
    • Site 1: Prospectively collected fresh specimens from the East Coast of the US.
    • Site 2: Prospectively collected fresh specimens (and performed toxigenic culture for all specimens, including those from other sites) from the East Coast of the US.
    • Site 3: Prospectively collected clinical specimens from the West Coast of the US and Upper Mid-West of the US.

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

• Reproducibility, LoD, Analytical Reactivity, Cross-Reactivity, Interference: Ground truth for these analytical studies was established by preparing bacterial stocks and contrived samples with known concentrations and identities. This does not typically involve human experts in the same way clinical ground truth does. The experiments were likely designed and performed by trained laboratory personnel. The document does not specify the number or qualifications of these individuals.
• Clinical Studies:
  • Ground Truth Method: "Toxigenic Culture" (Direct Culture + Toxin Assay and Enriched Culture + Toxin Assay) was used as the reference method. This is a laboratory-based method.
  • Experts: The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the toxigenic culture results. It states that "Site 2 conducted all direct and enriched toxigenic culture testing for all specimens," implying trained laboratory personnel rather than a panel of clinical experts for interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Analytical Studies (Reproducibility, LoD, Analytical Reactivity, Cross-Reactivity, Interference): Adjudication methods are not explicitly described for these laboratory experiments. The results are typically quantitative or categorical (detected/not detected) based on the assay's output. Any "invalid" results (e.g., in reproducibility and interference sections) led to retesting or were noted.
• Clinical Studies: The reference method for clinical studies was "Toxigenic Culture." The document does not describe any specific adjudication process involving multiple experts for the toxigenic culture results. "Site 2 conducted all direct and enriched toxigenic culture testing."

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 performed. This study focuses on an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay (PCR) for detecting a pathogen, not on human readers interpreting images or data with or without AI assistance. Therefore, there is no effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance.

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

• Yes, this study primarily assesses the standalone performance of the Simplexa™ C. difficile Universal Direct assay (an algorithm-based PCR method) without human interpretation as part of the primary diagnostic output. The device itself is an automated real-time PCR system. While human operators are involved in sample preparation and running the instrument, the result (detected/not detected) is generated automatically by the "detection techniques" of "Real time PCR with bi-functional fluorescent probe-primers using the 3M Integrated Cycler."

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Analytical Studies: Ground truth was established through known concentrations of bacterial strains and contrived samples for LoD, analytical reactivity, cross-reactivity, and interference studies.
• Clinical Studies: Ground truth for the clinical agreement study was established using Toxigenic Culture (Direct Culture + Toxin Assay and Enriched Culture + Toxin Assay). This is a laboratory-based gold standard for detecting toxigenic C. difficile.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document describes premarket notification (510(k)) studies for a diagnostic device. It does not mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The studies described are validation studies (analytical and clinical) performed on the final device. Therefore, a specific sample size for a training set is not applicable in this context.

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

• As a "training set" for machine learning is not applicable in this context, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Cepheid Xpert® C. difficile/Epi Assay is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for rapid detection of toxin B gene sequences and for presumptive identification of 027/NAP1/BI strains of toxigenic Clostridium difficile from unformed (liquid or soft) stool specimens collected from patients suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI). Presumptive identification of 027/NAP1/BI strains of C. difficile is by detection of binary toxin (CDT) gene sequences and the single base pair deletion at nucleotide 117 in the tcdC gene. The tcdC gene encodes for a negative regulator in C. difficile toxin production. The test is performed on the Cepheid GeneXpert® Dx System and utilizes automated real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect toxin gene sequences associated with toxin producing C. difficile. The Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of CDI. Detection of 027/NAP1/BI strains of C. difficile by the Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay is presumptive and is solely for epidemiological purposes and is not intended to guide or monitor treatment for C. difficile infections. Concomitant culture is necessary only if further typing or organism recovery is required.

The Cepheid Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay is a rapid, automated in vitro diagnostic test for qualitative detection of toxin producing Clostridium difficile directly from unformed (liquid or soft) stool specimens of patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). The assay detects the toxin B gene (tcdB), the binary toxin gene (CDT), and the single base pair deletion at nucleotide 117 within the gene encoding a negative regulator of toxin production (tcdCA117). The combined presence of the genes encoding toxin B and binary toxin and the tcdCA117 deletion have been associated with a hypervirulent C. difficile strain known as 027/NAP1/BI, which has been associated with severe disease outbreaks in healthcare facilities worldwide. The assay is performed on the Cepheid GeneXpert Dx System. The Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay system performs sample preparation and real-time, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of target-specific DNA. The GeneXpert Dx System consists of a GeneXpert® instrument, personal computer, and disposable fluidic cartridges. Each instrument contains 1-16 randomly accessible modules that are each capable of performing separate sample preparation and real-time PCR tests for detection of C. difficile toxin B and binary toxin gene sequences, and the tcdCA117 deletion, in less than 45 minutes. Each module contains a syringe drive for dispensing fluids, an ultrasonic horn for lysing cells or spores, and I-CORE® thermocycler for performing real-time PCR and detection. A swab is inserted into the stool specimen and then is placed in a tube containing elution reagent. Following brief vortexing, the eluted material and two single-use reagents (Reagent 1 and Reagent 2) that are provided with the Assay are transferred to different, uniquely-labeled chambers of the disposable fluidic cartridge (the Xpert C. difficile/Epi cartridge). The user initiates a test from the system user interface and places the cartridge into the GeneXpert Dx System instrument platform, which performs hands-off real-time, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of DNA. In this platform, additional sample preparation, amplification, and real-time detection are all fullyautomated and completely integrated. The Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay includes reagents for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile and the presumptive detection of sequences found in 027/NAP1/B1 strains. In addition, the assay reagents include an internal sample processing control (SPC) to ensure adequate processing of the target bacteria and to monitor the presence of inhibitor(s) in the PCR Assay. The SPC also ensures that the PCR conditions (temperature and time) are appropriate for the amplification reaction and that the PCR reagents are functional. The Probe Check Control (PCC) verifies reagent rehydration, PCR tube filling in the cartridge, probe integrity, and dye stability.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the performance metrics reported in the clinical comparison study against reference methods. The device's performance is reported relative to these established methods.

Study Details

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

   • Sample Size: 2293 specimens were tested in the overall clinical comparison study.
   • Data Provenance: Multi-site prospective investigation study at seven US and Canadian institutions.

2. 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 directly used for ground truth establishment.
   • The ground truth methods involved "reference culture followed by cell cytotoxicity testing on the isolates and strain typing on the toxigenic strains by restriction endonuclease analysis (REA), pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and PCR ribotyping methods."
   • "Following central culture testing, the toxigenic C. difficile positive isolates were sent to a second set of central laboratories for strain identification by REA, PFGE and PCR ribotyping." This suggests specialized laboratory personnel, but their specific qualifications are not detailed.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method for conflicting results if multiple experts were involved beyond the described laboratory processes. The ground truth seems to be established through a hierarchical laboratory workflow (initial culture, then cytotoxin B testing, then specific strain typing methods in central labs).

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:

   • No, this was not an MRMC study. This device is an automated in vitro diagnostic test (a nucleic acid amplification test), not an imaging-based AI system that assists human readers.

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

   • Yes, the clinical comparison study evaluates the Xpert C. difficile/Epi Assay as a standalone algorithm. The assay is fully automated, as described: "In this platform, additional sample preparation, amplification, and real-time detection are all fully-automated and completely integrated." Its performance is directly compared against the established reference laboratory methods.

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

   • The ground truth was established through a combination of microbiological culture, cell cytotoxicity testing, and molecular strain typing methods (REA, PFGE, PCR ribotyping) performed in central laboratories. This is a robust laboratory-based ground truth for identifying toxigenic C. difficile and specific hypervirulent strains.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not mention a specific training set size. The device is a PCR-based assay, not a machine learning algorithm that typically requires a distinct training set in the same way. The analytical studies (inclusivity, sensitivity, specificity, linearity, interfering substances) would have been used during development and validation, but these don't constitute a "training set" in the machine learning sense.

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

   • As no specific "training set" in the machine learning sense is described, there's no mention of how its ground truth would have been established. The analytical studies used well-characterized C. difficile strains and other microorganisms with known genetic profiles (which serves a similar purpose to "ground truth" for analytical validation).

Ask a specific question about this device

The illumigene C. difficile DNA amplification assay, performed on the illumipro-10, is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection of toxigenic C. difficile in human stool specimens from pediatric and adult patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD).

The illumigene C. difficile assay utilizes loop-mediated isothermal DNA amplification (LAMP) technology to detect the pathogenicity locus (PaLoc) of toxigenic Clostridium difficile PaLoc is a gene segment present in all known toxigenic C. difficile strains. The C. difficile PaLoc codes for both the Toxin A gene (tcdA) and the Toxin B gene (tcdB), has conserved border regions, and is found at the same site on the C. difficile genome for all toxigenic strains. The illumigene C. difficile assay detects the Paloc by targeting a partial DNA fragment on the Toxin A gene. The tcdA target region was selected as an intact region remaining in all known A+B+ and A-B+ toxinotypes.

illumigene C. difficile is intended for use in hospital, reference or state laboratory settings. The device is not intended for point-of-care use.

The illumigene Molecular Diagnostic Test System is comprised of the illumigene C. difficile DNA Amplification Test Kit, the illumigene C. difficile External Control Kit and the illumipro-10 Automated Isothermal Amplification and Detection System. The illumigene C. difficile DNA amplification assay utilizes loop-mediated isothermal amolification (LAMP) technology to detect the presence of toxigenic C. difficile in patients suspected of having C. difficile associated disease (CDAD). Each illumigene C. difficile assay is completed using an illumigene Sample Preparation Apparatus. Illumigene Reaction Buffer, illumigene C. difficile Test Device, Sample Collection Brush, and illumigene Extraction Tube. Samples are prepared using the Sample Collection Brush and the illumigene Sample Collection Apparatus, target DNA is heat extracted in the Extraction Tube and DNA amplification occurs in the illumigene C. difficile Test Device.

The illumipro-10 heats each illumigene C. difficile Test Device containing prepared samples, facilitation of target DNA. When toxigenic C. difficile is present in the patient specific sequence is amplified and Magnesium pyrophosphate is formed. Magnesium pyrophosphate in the reaction mixture. The illumipro-10 detects the change in light transmission mixture created by the precipitating Magnesium pyrophosphate. Sample results are reported as Positive based on the detected change in transmission.

The illumigene C. difficile External Control Kit consists of a Positive Control Reagent. External Control reagents are provided to aid the user in detection of reagent deterioration, adverse environmental or test conditions, or variance in operator performance that may lead to test errors. The illumigene C. difficile External Control Kit is required for routine Quality Control.

The illumigene C. difficile DNA amplification assay is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection of toxigenic C. difficile in human stool specimens from pediatric and adult patients suspected of having Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD). The assay detects a partial DNA fragment on the Toxin A gene within the pathogenicity locus (PaLoc) of toxigenic C. difficile.

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria values for sensitivity and specificity. However, based on the presented clinical trial results, the observed performance metrics can be considered the demonstrated performance of the device.

| Performance Metric | Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from reference K100818) | Reported Device Performance (Patients ≥ 2 years) | Reported Device Performance (Patients

Ask a specific question about this device

The illumigene C. difficile DNA amplification assay, performed on the illumipro-10, is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection of toxigenic C. difficile in human stool specients suspected of having Clostridium difficile associated disease (CDAD).

The illumigene C. difficile assay utilizes loop-mediated isothermal DNA amplification (LAMP) technology to detect the pathogenicity locus (PaLoc) of toxigenic Clostridium difficile PaLoc is a gene segment present in all known toxigenic C. difficile strains. The C. difficile PaLoc codes for both the Toxin A gene (tcdA) and the Toxin B gene (tcdB), has conserved border regions, and is found at the same site on the C. difficile genome for all toxigenic strains . The illumigene C. difficile assay detects the PaLoc by targeting a partial DNA fragment on the Toxin A gene. The tcdA target region was selected as an intact region remaining in all known A+B+ and A-B+ toxinotypes.

illumigene C. difficile is intended for use in hospital, reference or state laboratory settings. The device is not intended for point-of-care use.

The illumigene Molecular Diagnostic Test System is comprised of the illuminene C. difficite DNA Ampification Test Kit. the illumigene C. difficile External Control Kit and the illumipro-10 Automated Isothermal Amplification and Detection System. The illumigene C. difficile DNA amplification assay utilizes loop-mediated isothermal ampification (LAMP) technology to detect the presence of toxigenic C. difficile in patients suspected of having C. difficile associated disease (CDAD). Each illumiaene C. difficile assay is combleted using an illuminene Sample Preparation Apparatus. Illumicene Reaction Buffer, illumigene C. difficile Test Device, Sample Collection Brush, and illumigene Extraction Tube. Samples are prepared using the Sample Collection Brush and the illumigene Sample Collection Apparatus, target DNA is heat extracted in the Extraction Tube and DNA amplification occurs in the illumigene C. difficile Test Device.

The illumipro-10 heats each illumigene C. difficile Test Device containing prepared samples, facilitation of target DNA. When toxigenic C. difficile is present in the patient specific sequence is amplified and Magnesium pyrophosphate is formed. Magnesium pyrophosphate in the reaction mixture. The Illumioro-10 detects the change in light transmission mixture created by the precipitating Magnesium pyrophosphate. Sample results are reported as Positive based on the detected change in transmission.

The illumigene C. difficile External Control Kit consists of a Positive Control Reagent. External Control reagents are provided to aid the user in deterioration, adverse environmental or test conditions, or variance in operator performance that may lead to test errors. The illumigene C. difficile External Control Kit is required for routine Quality Control.

The provided document describes the illumigene™ C. difficile DNA Amplification Assay, illumipro-10™ Automated Isothermal Amplification and Detection System, and illumigene™ C. difficile External Control Kit. This system is designed for the direct detection of toxigenic C. difficile in human stool samples to diagnose Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets these criteria:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in numerical thresholds (e.g., "sensitivity must be >90%"). Instead, the document presents the device's performance characteristics from a clinical study, implying these demonstrated values are acceptable for market clearance. The comparison is made against cytotoxic bacterial culture as the reference comparator.

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

• Sample Size for Clinical Study (Test Set): 697 qualified patient samples. Of these, 677 samples were used for the overall performance data (Table 1), likely due to invalids or samples not meeting all inclusion criteria for the final analysis.
• Data Provenance: Clinical trials were conducted in 2010 across four independent clinical test sites and the manufacturer located in the Midwestern and Southern regions of the United States. The study involved prospective collection of samples (patient samples collected from individuals suspected of having CDAD).

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

The ground truth for the clinical test set was established by cytotoxic bacterial culture, which is a laboratory method, not human expert consensus. Therefore, the concept of "number of experts" or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth is not applicable in this context.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The ground truth was established by laboratory culture (cytotoxic bacterial culture), not by human interpretation requiring an adjudication process.

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

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a molecular diagnostic assay, not an imaging-based AI system that would involve human readers interpreting AI results. The comparison is between the automated system and a laboratory reference standard.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The clinical performance data (Sensitivity, Specificity, Correlation) presented in "Performance Comparison, Clinical Tests" and "Table 1. Overall performance data" represents the performance of the illumigene C. difficile assay (algorithm/device only) in detecting toxigenic C. difficile directly from patient stool samples, as compared to cytotoxic bacterial culture. The system is designed for automated amplification and detection.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for the clinical performance evaluation was cytotoxic bacterial culture.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate training set size for the illumigene C. difficile assay's development. This is common for molecular diagnostic assays that are designed based on known genetic targets and biological principles, rather than machine learning algorithms requiring explicit training data. The "Performance Comparison, Clinical Tests" section describes a clinical validation or test set.

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

As no explicit "training set" is mentioned in the context of machine learning, this question is not directly applicable. For the development and initial validation of the assay's ability to detect the pathogenicity locus (PaLoc), the ground truth for targeted sequences would have been established through well-characterized bacterial strains and genetic sequencing data specific to toxigenic C. difficile. The analytical sensitivity section describes testing against various known C. difficile strains with established toxinotypes and phenotypes to determine the limit of detection.

Ask a specific question about this device