Search Results

The GSP Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit is intended for the quantitative determination of human 17α-OH-progesterone in blood specimens dried on filter paper as an aid in screening newborns for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) using the GSP™ instrument.

The GSP Neonatal 17x-OH-progesterone (17-OHP) assay is a solid phase, time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay based on the competitive reaction between europium-labeled 17-OHP and sample 17-OHP for a limited amount of binding sites on 17-OHP specific polyclonal antibodies (derived from rabbit). Danazol facilitates the release of 17-OHP from the binding proteins. A second antibody, directed against rabbit IgG, is coated to the solid phase, giving convenient separation of the antibody-bound and free antigen. DELFIA Inducer dissociates europium ions from the labeled antigen into solution where they form highly fluorescent chelates with components of DELFIA Inducer. The fluorescence in each well is then measured. The fluorescence of each sample is inversely proportional to the concentration of 17-OHP in the sample.

The provided text describes the GSP Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit and its comparison to a predicate device, the AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit. The primary study presented focuses on the "Screening Efficacy" of the new GSP kit by comparing its results to those of the predicate device using various percentile cut-offs.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative manner (e.g., "The device must achieve X% accuracy"). Instead, it demonstrates performance by comparing the new device (GSP kit) to the legally marketed predicate device (AutoDELFIA kit) and showing high agreement.

The screening efficacy tables (Tables 1-9) implicitly demonstrate the device's acceptable performance based on its agreement with the predicate device. For the purpose of this analysis, we will consider the "Overall percent agreement" with the predicate device as the key performance metric presented.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: A total of 2589 specimens were evaluated across all weight categories and cut-offs.
  • ≥2500g: 1842 specimens (Tables 1, 4, 7)
  • 1250g-2249g: 439 specimens (Tables 2, 5, 8)
  • <1250g: 308 specimens (Tables 3, 6, 9)
  • Additionally, 23 known CAH cases were included within these 2589 samples.
  • For the general method comparison (Y= 0.97x + 0.27; r = 0.96), 2567 samples were compared.
• Data Provenance: The study used retrospective archived specimens and leftover samples from specimens submitted for routine screening. The document does not specify the country of origin of the data, but it states the study was conducted "in one newborn screening laboratory."

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for this comparison study. Instead, the "ground truth" for the screening efficacy study is implicitly defined by the results of the predicate device (AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit). The 23 "known CAH cases" would have had their diagnosis established through other means, likely clinical follow-up and definitive diagnostic tests, which are not detailed in this report.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

There is no mention of an adjudication method in the context of comparing the GSP kit to the AutoDELFIA kit. The comparison directly uses the test results from both devices.

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 described is a quantitative in vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit for measuring 17α-OH-progesterone, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting images or results. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI assistance effect size is discussed.

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

Yes, the performance presented for the GSP Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit is a standalone (algorithm only) performance. The kit is designed to quantitatively determine 17α-OH-progesterone levels in blood specimens using the GSP™ instrument; it does not involve human interpretation in the workflow described for the direct comparison.

7. The type of ground truth used

The primary "ground truth" against which the new device's performance is measured is the predicate device's performance (AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit). This is a common approach for demonstrating substantial equivalence for new IVD devices.

Additionally, the study included 23 known CAH cases, indicating that these cases had a definitive diagnosis of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, likely established through a combination of clinical outcomes, follow-up testing, and potentially genetic analysis, although the specific details are not provided. These cases served as a validation point within the overall sample set.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document describes a device comparison and does not explicitly reference a "training set" in the context of machine learning or algorithm development. This is an IVD kit, where performance is typically established through analytical and clinical validation studies rather than machine learning training.

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

As there is no mention of a separate "training set" for an algorithm in this context, information on how its ground truth was established is not provided. The calibrators and controls used for the kit itself would be part of the manufacturing quality control and calibration process, established using gravimetric methods and human blood matrix (as mentioned in Table 1).

Ask a specific question about this device

The AutoDELFIA® Neonatal 17a-OH-progesterone kit is intended for the quantitative determination of human 17a-OH-progesterone in blood specimens dried on filter paper as an aid in screening newborns for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) using the 1235 AutoDELFIA® automatic immunoassay system.

The AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone (17-OHP) assay is a solid phase, time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay based on the competitive reaction between europium-labeled 17-OHP and sample 17-OHP for a limited amount of binding sites on 17-OHP specific polyclonal antibodies (derived from rabbit). Danazol facilitates the release of 17-OHP from the binding proteins. A second antibody, directed against rabbit IgG, is coated to the solid phase, giving convenient separation of the antibody-bound and free antigen. Enhancement Solution dissociates europium ions from the labeled antigen into solution where they form highly fluorescent chelates with components of the Enhancement Solution. The fluorescence in each well is then measured. The fluorescence of each sample is inversely proportional to the concentration of 17-OHP in the sample.

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

Device: AutoDELFIA® Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit (B024)
Intended Use: Quantitative determination of human 17α-OH-progesterone in blood specimens dried on filter paper as an aid in screening newborns for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) using the 1235 AutoDELFIA® automatic immunoassay system.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes the proposed device (B024) as substantially equivalent to a predicate device (K042425, B015) and highlights differences in performance characteristics. The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by demonstrating similar or improved performance compared to the predicate device, especially regarding cross-reactivity and screening efficacy.

In Study 1, < 1250 g, 95th percentile, the new kit detected 1 out of 2 CAH cases (the other case was due to maternal CAH treatment impacting the results). In Study 2, ≥ 2250 g, 95th percentile, using percentiles higher than the 90th resulted in one false negative out of 13 clinically confirmed CAH samples. The document notes that laboratories should consider this when setting screening cut-offs.

The Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

The device's performance was evaluated through screening efficacy studies performed in two newborn screening laboratories, comparing the proposed kit (B024) to the predicate device (B015).

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

• Test Set Sample Sizes:
  • Study 1:
    • < 1250 g: 364 subjects (Tables 2 & 3)
    • 1250-2249 g: 500 subjects (Tables 4 & 5)
    • ≥ 2250 g: 1328 subjects (Tables 6 & 7)
    • Total Study 1: 2192 subjects
  • Study 2:
    • < 1250 g: 168 subjects (Tables 8 & 9)
    • 1250-2249 g: 372 subjects (Tables 10 & 11)
    • ≥ 2250 g: 1299 subjects (Tables 12 & 13)
    • Total Study 2: 1839 subjects
  • Total Samples for Screening Efficacy: 2192 + 1839 = 4031 subjects (pooled studies, across different weight categories and percentiles).
  • Known CAH Cases:
    • Study 1: 17 confirmed CAH cases.
    • Study 2: 13 confirmed CAH cases (all in ≥ 2250g category).
• Data Provenance: Retrospective specimens and excess samples. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the submitter is Wallac Oy, Finland, suggesting the studies likely occurred in European or Western laboratories.

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

The document refers to "confirmed CAH case samples" and "clinically confirmed CAH samples." It does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications directly involved in establishing the ground truth for the individual test samples. The implication is that the CAH diagnoses were established clinically prior to the samples being used for the study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an explicit adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the ground truth of the test set samples. It relies on previously "confirmed" or "clinically confirmed" CAH diagnoses.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit that provides quantitative measurements, not an imaging AI algorithm requiring human reader interpretation with or without AI assistance. The comparison is between the performance of two IVD kits.

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

Yes, this was a standalone performance study. The device (immunoassay kit) directly produces a quantitative result (17-OHP concentration), which is then compared against established cut-offs. There is no "human-in-the-loop" component in the interpretation of the kit's raw result in the context of this performance assessment, although human laboratory personnel perform the assay and clinical interpretation of results based on screening guidelines.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was clinical diagnosis/outcomes data for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). The document refers to "confirmed CAH case samples" and "clinically confirmed CAH samples."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide details of a specific "training set" in the context of machine learning. For an IVD kit like this, "training" typically refers to the assay development and validation process (e.g., antibody selection, calibration curve establishment, optimization of reagents), which is not quantified by a sample size in the same way as an AI algorithm's training data. The description indicates a "new antiserum in B024," which suggests a re-optimization or re-development that would have involved internal validation and method development.

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

As noted above, a distinct "training set" with ground truth in the AI/ML sense is not applicable here. The ground truth for developing and validating the assay's components (like the new antiserum) would have involved:

• Characterization of pure steroid compounds for cross-reactivity assessment.
• Use of spiked samples with known concentrations of 17-OHP to establish linearity, analytical sensitivity, and precision.
• Reference methods or established clinical samples during assay development and optimization to ensure it accurately measures 17-OHP.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Accuwell" 17α-Hydroxyprogesterone EIA Kit is designed for the quantitative measurement of 17α-Hydroxyprogesterone (17-OHP) concentrations in neonatal blood samples that have been collected onto Whatman 903® specimen collection paper. The results are used to screen newborns for classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH).

The Accuwell" 17a-Hydroxyprogesterone EIA Kit is a competitive solid phase enzyme immunoassay (ElA) for the quantitative measurement of 17«-Hydroxyprogesterone (17-OHP) concentrations in neonatal blood samples that have been collected onto Whatman S&S 903" specimen collection paper. Standard control, and unknown dried blood spot sample discs are added to specified wells in a 90-well microplate coated with antiserum specific for 17-OHP.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting study for the Accuwell 17-alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone EIA, based on the provided text:

Device: Accuwell 17-alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone (OHP) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for neonatal screening.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for this device are primarily demonstrated through comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17a-OH-progesterone) and adherence to established internal precision and analytical sensitivity targets. While explicit "acceptance criteria" in terms of pass/fail thresholds for each metric are not always numerically stated as such, the document presents comparative data and targets that would have been used to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Study Details

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

   • Method Comparison Study (Test Set):

     • Population >2500g b.w., 0-1 days old: 133 infant blood spot specimens.
     • Population >2500g b.w., 2-3 days old: 133 infant blood spot specimens.
     • Population >2500g b.w., >4 days old: 197 infant blood spot specimens.
     • Population 1400-2500g b.w., 1-6 days old: 30 infant blood spot specimens.
     • Total Samples for Method Comparison: 133 + 133 + 197 + 30 = 493 infant blood spot specimens.
     • Data Provenance: Retrospective study. Test samples were blinded neonatal dried blood spots collected in sequence under routine screening conditions from a U.S. department of public health laboratory. Original screening results for each sample using the predicate test kit were also obtained from the submitting laboratory.

   • Precision Study:

     • Test samples: CDC Control Lots 451, 452, and 453 (enriched with 25, 50, and 100 ng/ml serum equivalents, respectively). These are laboratory control materials, not patient samples.
     • Number of measurements: 40 measurements for each control level across each of the three assay procedures (ON Eluate, 3 HR Eluate, ON Direct DBS).

   • Analytical Sensitivity Study:

     • Test Samples: Zero standard (N=26).
     • Number of measurements: 26 measurements in one assay for each of the two procedures (eluate and direct, spanning elution times).

   • Linearity and Recovery Study:

     • Test Samples: Dried blood spots representing 12 concentrations (10, 24.5, 39, 68, 97, 126, 155, 184, 213, 242, 271, 300 ng/ml).
     • Number of measurements per sample: Four aliquots of each of the 12 samples were tested in each of two runs using each of the three assay procedures. This implies 8 measurements per sample for each procedure.

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

   • Not applicable (N/A) in the AI sense. This is an in vitro diagnostic device measuring a biomarker. "Ground truth" for the test set in the method comparison study was established by the measurement of these same samples using the predicate device (AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17a-OH-progesterone kit) in a reference lab setting, combined with the fact they were routine screening samples from a public health lab. The device's performance is gauged against another validated assay, not against expert human interpretations of images or clinical cases.

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

   • None. This is a quantitative assay, comparing the numerical output of the new device against the numerical output of a predicate device. There is no human diagnostic interpretation to adjudicate.

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 is an in vitro diagnostic device for laboratory measurement, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not applicable.

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

   • Yes, effectively. The Accuwell 17-OHP EIA kit itself is a standalone diagnostic tool. Its performance (accuracy, precision, linearity, sensitivity, specificity) is evaluated independently, and then its results are compared to those of another "standalone" diagnostic kit (the predicate). While a human technician operates the EIA and reads the microplate spectrophotometer, the assay itself generates the quantitative results without human cognitive interpretation of subjective data. The "human-in-the-loop" here is the lab professional following the procedural steps.

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

   • Comparison to a legally marketed predicate device. In the context of 510(k) submissions for in vitro diagnostics, the predicate device's performance often serves as the "ground truth" for demonstrating substantial equivalence. The predicate device itself would have been validated against some form of clinical or analytical ground truth (e.g., confirmed CAH diagnoses, reference methods like GC-MS, or clinical outcomes), but for this submission, the predicate is the primary comparison.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable (N/A) in the AI/machine learning sense. This is a chemical immunoassay kit, not a machine learning model that undergoes "training" on a dataset. The development of the assay would have involved various experimental iterations and optimizations, but there isn't a "training set" like in AI.

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

   • Not applicable (N/A). As stated above, this is an immunoassay kit, not an AI model requiring a training set with established ground truth. The "training" of the device is through its manufacturing process and quality control, ensuring it produces accurate biochemical measurements based on validated reagents and procedures.

Ask a specific question about this device

This kit is intended for the quantitative determination of 17 a - OH-progesterone in blood specimens dried on filter paper as an aid in screening newborns for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) using the 1235 AutoDELFIA automatic immunoassay system.

The AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17α-ΟΗ-progesterone (17-ΟΗΡ) assay is a solid phase, time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay based on the competition between europium-labeled 17-OHP and sample 17-OHP for a limited number of binding sites on 17-OHP specific polyclonal antibodies (derived from rabbit). Danazol facilitates the release of 17-OHP from the binding proteins. A second antibody, directed against rabbit IgG, is coated to the solid phase, giving convenient separation of the antibodybound and free antigen. Enhancement Solution dissociates europium ions from the labeled antiserum into solution, where they form highly fluorescent chelates with components of the Enhancement Solution. The fluorescence in each well is then measured. The fluorescence of each sample is inversely proportional to the quantity of 17-OHP in the sample.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the AutoDELFIA® Neonatal 17 α-OH-progesterone L kit. The document declares its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (AutoDELFIA® Neonatal 17 α-OH-progesterone kit, K042425) and discusses the general intended use and description of the device. However, it does not include detailed information regarding specific acceptance criteria, a comprehensive study report proving the device meets those criteria, or the specific performance metrics typically expected in an AI/software device evaluation.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance with the specified details. The document is for a laboratory diagnostic kit, not an AI/software device, and thus the requested information categories (sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, number/qualification of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not applicable or
present in this type of submission.

The document states: "The design control validation of the modified AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone L kit has been done, and the performance of the modified kit is equivalent to the performance of the original AutoDELFIA Neonatal17a-OH-progesterone kit." This implies that the validation focused on demonstrating equivalence to the predicate device rather than establishing new, specific performance acceptance criteria for a novel AI system.

Ask a specific question about this device

This kit is intended for the quantitative determination of 17 a- OH-progesterone in blood specimens dried on filter paper as an aid in screening newborns for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH).

The DELFIA Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone (17-OHP) assay is a solid phase, time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay based on the competition between europium-labeled 17-OHP and sample 17-OHP for a limited number of binding sites on 17-OHP specific polyclonal antibodies (derived from rabbit). Danazol facilitates the release of 17-OHP from the binding proteins. A second antibody, directed against rabbit IgG, is coated to the solid phase, giving convenient separation of the antibodybound and free antigen. Enhancement Solution dissociates europium ions from the labeled antiserum into solution, where they form highly fluorescent chelates with components of the Enhancement Solution. The fluorescence in each well is then measured. The fluorescence of each sample is inversely proportional to the quantity of 17-OHP in the sample.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the DELFIA® Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria, detailed study results, or information about sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment.

Therefore, I cannot fully answer your request for a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance or information about the study design elements you asked for. The document states:

"The performance of the modified DELFIA Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit was tested both by carrying out in-house studies and by studies in neonatal screening laboratories. The performance of the modified kit was found to be equivalent with the predicate DELFIA Neonatal 17α-OH-progesterone kit and suitable for its intended use."

This statement confirms that studies were done and the device met performance expectations by showing equivalence to a predicate device, but it lacks the quantitative details required to populate your requested table and answer your specific questions about the study methodology.

Without further information from the detailed submission to the FDA, I cannot provide the specifics you're looking for.

Ask a specific question about this device

This kit is intended for the quantitative determination of 17 a- OH-progesterone in blood specimens dried on filter paper as an aid in screening newborns for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) using the 1235 AutoDELFIA automatic immunoassay system.

The AutoDELFIA Neonatal 17α-ΟΗ-progesterone (17-ΟΗΡ) assay is a solid phase, time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay based on the competition between europium-labeled 17-OHP and sample 17-OHP for a limited number of binding sites on 17-OHP specific polyclonal antibodies (derived from rabbit). Danazol facilitates the release of 17-OHP from the binding proteins. A second antibody, directed against rabbit IgG, is coated to the solid phase, giving convenient separation of the antibodybound and free antigen. Enhancement Solution dissociates europium ions from the labeled antiserum into solution, where they form highly fluorescent chelates with components of the Enhancement Solution. The fluorescence in each well is then measured. The fluorescence of each sample is inversely proportional to the quantity of 17-OHP in the sample.

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a specific study that outlines how the device demonstrably meets those criteria. The document is a 510(k) summary for the "AutoDELFIA® Neonatal 17 α-OH-progesterone kit," which focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed performance studies against specific acceptance criteria.

However, based on the information provided, we can infer some aspects related to device performance and study design:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria. Instead, it relies on the concept of "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device. The performance of the modified kit was found to be "equivalent" and "suitable for its intended use."

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample size used for the performance evaluation. It mentions "in-house studies and by studies in neonatal screening laboratories."
• Data Provenance: The studies were conducted "in-house" and "in neonatal screening laboratories." The country of origin for the submitting company (Wallac Oy) is Finland, suggesting that some or all of the studies might have taken place in Finland or other European neonatal screening centers. The document does not specify if the data was retrospective or prospective.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The device is for quantitative determination and screening, which typically relies on established medical thresholds and clinical diagnoses rather than expert consensus on individual test results for ground truth.

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

• No MRMC study mentioned: The device is an immunoassay kit for quantitative determination, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging or interpretation tool that would involve human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study and analysis of human reader improvement with AI would not be applicable or relevant to this device.

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

• Implicitly a standalone device: The AutoDELFIA system is an automated immunoassay system. The "kit" refers to the reagents and consumables used with this system to perform the quantitative determination of 17α-OH-progesterone. As such, the performance of the kit, when used with the AutoDELFIA system, is inherently "standalone" in generating a quantitative result. There isn't a human-in-the-loop interpreting a visual output from the algorithm in the way one might with an imaging AI.

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

The document does not explicitly state how ground truth was established for the performance studies. For a screening test like this, ground truth for CAH would typically be established through:

• Clinical diagnosis: Confirmation of CAH through subsequent diagnostic tests, genetic testing, and clinical assessment.
• Pathology/Biochemical confirmation: Measurement of other steroid hormones, genetic analysis, or enzyme activity tests that definitively diagnose CAH.

Given the nature of the device as a quantitative assay for a biomarker, the comparison would likely be against established clinical diagnostic criteria for CAH.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided. As an immunoassay kit, it's unlikely to have a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The "training" in developing such a kit would involve optimizing reagent concentrations, reaction conditions, and calibration procedures, which is a different paradigm than data-driven AI model training.

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

Not applicable as it's not an AI model requiring a training set with explicitly established ground truth in the AI sense. Development of the assay would involve various analytical validation studies.

Ask a specific question about this device