Search Results

The Alkaline Phosphatase assay is used for the quantitation of alkaline phosphatase in human serum or plasma.

Measurements of alkaline phosphatase or its isoenzymes are to be used as an aid in the diagnosis and treatment of liver, bone, parathyroid, and intestinal diseases.

The Alkaline Phosphatase assay is an automated clinical chemistry assay.

Alkaline phosphatase in the sample catalyzes the hydrolysis of colorless p-nitrophenyl phosphate (p-NPP) to give p-nitrophenol and inorganic phosphate. At the pH of the assay (alkaline), the p-nitrophenol is in the yellow phenoxide form. The rate of absorbance increase at 404 nm is directly proportional to the alkaline phosphatase activity in the sample. Optimized concentrations of zinc and magnesium ions are present to activate the alkaline phosphatase in the sample.

The FDA document provided is a 510(k) premarket notification for an in vitro diagnostic device, the Alkaline Phosphatase assay. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness de novo. Therefore, the information provided relates to testing done to establish equivalence for a pre-existing device with modifications, not a new device.

The study proves that the modified device meets acceptance criteria, primarily by demonstrating that it performs equivalently to the predicate device and that incremental changes do not adversely affect its performance.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria, based on the provided text.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document provides a general statement that the device "met the pre-defined product requirements for all characteristics evaluated in the verification studies." It doesn't present a specific table of acceptance criteria vs. performance in the typical format of a clinical study, but rather a comparison of characteristics to a predicate device and a statement about the results of verification studies.

The key acceptance criterion discussed is substantial equivalence to the predicate device (K023807), particularly regarding:

• Intended Use and Indications for Use: The subject device is intended for the same use as the predicate: "quantitation of alkaline phosphatase in human serum or plasma," as an aid in diagnosis and treatment of various diseases.
• Methodology and Assay Principle: Both use para-nitrophenyl phosphate and a kinetic measurement method.
• Performance (specifically after IFCC calibration factor change): The 6.5% increase in reported results due to the optional IFCC calibration factor is deemed acceptable because it falls within the acceptable assay bias specifications (up to +/-10%) and the customer would be aware of this change.
• Risk Mitigation: The comprehensive risk-based assessment for all changes ensured that "the accumulated modifications did not impact the performance of the device."

Since this is an in vitro diagnostic device for measuring a specific analyte (Alkaline Phosphatase), the "performance" here refers to analytical performance characteristics rather than clinical diagnostic accuracy in the way a medical imaging AI would.

Here's a table summarizing the implicit acceptance criteria and the reported performance as derived from the document:

Study Details (based on the provided text, which is an FDA clearance letter for an IVD, not a detailed study report for AI/imaging device)

The document relates to modifications made to an existing in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, not a new AI-powered diagnostic for imaging. Therefore, many of the typical questions for an AI/imaging device (e.g., sample size for test set, expert readers, MRMC study, ground truth for imaging) are not directly applicable or detailed in this type of FDA letter.

However, based on the information provided, we can infer some details relevant to an IVD device:

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

   • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "verification studies" which typically involve testing samples across the measurement range, parallelism, interference, precision, etc. for an IVD. The exact number of samples (patients or analytical runs) isn't specified in this summary.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified regarding country of origin. The studies are described as "verification studies" and "comprehensive risk-based assessment." For IVDs, these are typically prospective laboratory studies conducted by the manufacturer to validate performance characteristics. It's safe to assume they were laboratory-controlled, likely prospective.

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

   • This question is not applicable in the context of this IVD device. "Ground truth" for an IVD like Alkaline Phosphatase is established by the analytical measurement itself, often compared to reference methods or known concentrations, or through internal validation against established performance claims. It does not involve human expert interpretation of an image or signal.

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

   • This question is not applicable for this IVD. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in AI/imaging studies where multiple human readers interpret data that then needs to be reconciled to establish a "ground truth" for comparison with AI. For an IVD, there isn't subjective interpretation of this kind. The measurement process itself generates the result.

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:

   • This type of study is not applicable to this IVD. MRMC studies are specific to AI-assisted imaging diagnostics, evaluating the impact of AI on human reader performance. This device provides a quantitative biochemical measurement, not an image for human interpretation.

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

   • In a sense, yes, the fundamental performance of the IVD is "standalone" in that the automated analyzer (ARCHITECT c System) quantitatively measures alkaline phosphatase activity. The "algorithm" here is the chemical reaction and photometric measurement, and its output is a numerical value (U/L). The verification studies would assess this standalone analytical performance (e.g., precision, accuracy, linearity, detection limits) against pre-defined specifications. The IFCC factor is a mathematical change to this standalone output.

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

   • For an IVD like this, "ground truth" is typically established through:
     • Reference Methods: Comparison of results to established, highly accurate reference methods for alkaline phosphatase.
     • Known Concentrations: Testing samples with precisely known concentrations of alkaline phosphatase.
     • Clinical Correlation: Demonstrating that the assay measures the analyte in patient samples consistently and reliably across relevant patient populations, although the primary ground truth is analytical.
   • The document implies that the "pre-defined product requirements" and "acceptable assay bias specifications" served as the benchmarks for determining if the device performed acceptably. The 6.5% shift from the IFCC factor was evaluated against these analytical specifications.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This question is not directly applicable in the context of a traditional IVD chemical assay development, as there isn't an "AI model" that requires a training set in the typical sense. The "training" for such a system would be the chemical formulation and instrument calibration based on extensive R&D and optimization, not a data-driven machine learning process. The "validation" of the final product involves the verification studies mentioned.

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

   • As above, not directly applicable. The IVD operates on established biochemical principles. Its "ground truth" for development and optimization would be based on fundamental chemistry, enzyme kinetics, and metrological traceability to international standards (e.g., IFCC reference methods for calibrator values).

Ask a specific question about this device