Search Results

The ACE y-GT Reagent is intended for the quantitative determination of gamma-glutamyltransferase activity in serum and lithium heparin plasma using the ACE, ACE Alera, and ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry Systems. Gamma-glutamyltransferase measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of liver diseases such as alcoholic cirrhosis and primary and secondary liver tumors. This test is intended for use in clinical laboratories and physician office laboratories. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

The ACE Lipase Reagent is intended for the quantitative determination of lipase activity in serum and lithium heparin plasma using the ACE, ACE Alera, and ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry Systems. Lipase measurements are used in diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the pancreas such as acute pancreatitis and obstruction of the pancreatic duct. This test is intended for use in clinical laboratories and physician office laboratories. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

The ACE T4 Reagent is intended for the quantitative determination of total thyroxine (T4) in serum and lithium heparin plasma using the ACE, ACE Alera, and ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry Systems. Total thyroxine measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid diseases. This test is intended for use in clinical laboratories and physician office laboratories. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

In the ACE γ-GT Reagent assay, γ-GT in serum or heparin plasma catalyzes the transfer of the γ-glutamyl group from L-γ-glutamyl-3-carboxy-4-nitroanilide to glycylglycine in the reagent. The product, 5-amino-2-nitrobenzoate, absorbs strongly at 408 nm. The rate of increase in absorbance, monitored bichromatically at 408 nm/486 nm, is directly proportional to the γ-GT activity in the sample.

In the ACE Lipase Reagent Assay, lipase in serum or heparin plasma acts on a natural substrate, 1,2-diglyceride, to liberate 2-monoglyceride. This is hydrolyzed by monoglyceride lipase (a highly specific enzyme for monoglyceride) into glycerol and free fatty acid. Glycerol kinase acts on glycerol to form glycerol-3-phosphate, which is in turn acted on by glycerol-3-phosphate oxidase to generate hydrogen peroxide. Peroxidase converts the hydrogen peroxide, 4-Aminoantipyrine and TOOS (N-ethyl-N-(2-hydroxy-3-sulfopropyl)-m-toluidine) into a quinine dye. The rate of formation of the dye, determined bichromatically at an absorbance of 573 nm/692 nm, is proportional to the lipase activity in the sample.

The ACE T4 Assay is a homogeneous enzyme immunoassay using ready-to-use liquid ACE T4 Reagent. The assay uses 8-anilino-1-naphthalene sulfonic acid (ANS) to dissociate thyroxine from the plasma binding proteins. Using specific antibodies to thyroxine, this assay is based on the competition of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) labeled thyroxine and the dissociated thyroxine in the sample for a fixed amount of specific antibody binding sites. In the absence of thyroxine from the sample, the thyroxine labeled G6PD in the second reagent is bound by the specific antibody in the first reagent, inhibiting the enzyme's activity. The enzyme G6PD catalyzes the oxidation of glucose-6-phosphate (G6P) with nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADT) to form 6-phosphogluconate and reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH). NADH strongly absorbs at 340 nm whereas NAD does not. The rate of conversion, determined by measuring the increase in absorbance bichromatically at 340 nm/505 nm during a fixed time interval, is directly proportional to the amount of thyroxine in the sample. The concentration of thyroxine is determined automatically by the ACE Clinical Chemistry Systems using a logarithmic calibration curve established with calibrators, which are provided separately.

The information provided describes the performance of the ACE γ-GT, ACE Lipase, and ACE T4 Reagents on the ACE, ACE Alera, and ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry Systems. This is not an AI/ML device, however, I will address the other requested points to the best of my ability with the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information, where applicable:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a separate table. However, it provides performance data for precision, matrix comparison (serum vs. plasma), detection limits, linearity, and interference. Based on the "Conclusions" section, the goal was to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" of the reagents for lithium heparin plasma samples (compared to serum) and the ACE Alera System (compared to the predicate ACE Clinical Chemistry System). The performance data presented are implicitly intended to support this substantial equivalence.

Implied Acceptance Criteria (based on predicate comparison and performance data) and Reported Performance:

For POL Precision: Similar acceptable %CV values for low, mid, and high samples across different POL sites and in-house, on ACE and ACE Alera systems. | In-House Precision (Serum vs. Plasma):

• γ-GT: Total %CV generally 0.997, Slope 0.960-0.987, Intercept 1.5-4.0 across systems.
  Lipase: Correlation > 0.994, Slope 0.980-1.024, Intercept -2.5 to -0.9 across systems (for ACE and ACE Alera, Axcel missing intercept CI).
  T4: Correlation > 0.984, Slope 0.963-1.007, Intercept 0.01-0.35 across systems. |
  | Method Comparison (POL) | When comparing results from POL sites to in-house results on the same instrument, correlation coefficients should be high (close to 1), slopes close to 1, and with small intercepts, indicating consistency across testing locations. | ACE System:
• γ-GT: Correlation > 0.9997, Slope 0.964-0.976, Intercept -2.7 to 0.7.
• Lipase: Correlation > 0.9966, Slope 0.994-1.031, Intercept -5.3 to 0.0.
• T4: Correlation > 0.9908, Slope 1.010-1.019, Intercept -0.09 to -0.04.

ACE Alera System:

• γ-GT: Correlation > 0.9996, Slope 0.950-1.028, Intercept 1.9 to 2.9.
• Lipase: Correlation > 0.9960, Slope 0.992-1.028, Intercept -3.5 to 3.3.
• T4: Correlation > 0.9868, Slope 1.022-1.048, Intercept -0.31 to -0.10. |
  | Detection Limits (ACE Alera) | Limits of Blank (LOB), Detection (LOD), and Quantitation (LOQ) should be clinically acceptable. | γ-GT: LOB 3 U/L, LOD 5 U/L, LOQ 7 U/L.
  Lipase: LOB 7 U/L, LOD 11 U/L, LOQ 13 U/L.
  T4: LOB 0.3 µg/dL, LOD 0.8 µg/dL, LOQ 1.3 µg/dL. |
  | Linearity (ACE Alera) | The assay should be linear up to the stated measuring range, with a linear regression equation demonstrating good fit. | γ-GT: Linear to 950 U/L ($y = 1.036x + 0.8$).
  Lipase: Linear to 700 U/L ($y = 0.971x + 0.2$).
  T4: Linear to 19.6 µg/dL ($y = 1.057x - 0.09$). |
  | Interferences (ACE Alera) | No significant interference from common exogenous or endogenous substances at physiologically relevant or elevated concentrations. | γ-GT: No significant interference at or below Icterus 14.2 mg/dL, Hemolysis 125 mg/dL, Lipemia 500 mg/dL, Ascorbic Acid 6 mg/dL.
  Lipase: No significant interference below Icterus 12.5 mg/dL, Hemolysis 1000 mg/dL, Lipemia 803 mg/dL, Ascorbic Acid 6 mg/dL.
  T4: No significant interference below Icterus 47.2 mg/dL, Hemolysis 1000 mg/dL, Lipemia 1000 mg/dL, Ascorbic Acid 6 mg/dL.
  Heterophile (T4): HAMA 800 ng/mL, RF 516 IU/mL.
  Cross-Reactivity (T4): 3,3',5,5'- Tetraiodothyroacetic Acid (18.4%), L-Thyroxine (91.6%), D-Thyroxine (68.0%) at 5 µg/dL. |

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

The document does not explicitly use the term "test set" in the context of AI/ML, but rather describes clinical performance studies. The sample sizes for these studies are as follows:

• In-House Matrix Comparison (Serum vs. Plasma):
  • ACE γ-GT Reagent: 100 pairs (ACE), 97 pairs (ACE Alera), 53 pairs (ACE Axcel)
  • ACE Lipase Reagent: 42 pairs (ACE), 43 pairs (ACE Alera), 62 pairs (ACE Axcel)
  • ACE T4 Reagent: 55 pairs (ACE), 55 pairs (ACE Alera), 55 pairs (ACE Axcel)
• Method Comparison (POL vs. In-House):
  • ACE System: 50-54 samples per reagent per POL site (3 POL sites)
  • ACE Alera System: 48-51 samples per reagent per POL site (3 POL sites)
• Precision (In-House and POL): The number of replicates per sample level (Low, Mid, High) is not explicitly stated, but precision studies typically involve multiple runs over several days.
• Detection Limits, Linearity, Interferences, Cross-Reactivity: Sample sizes for these specific experiments are not detailed but are generally conducted with a sufficient number of replicates and concentrations to statistically establish the parameters.

Data Provenance: The studies are described as "In-House" and "POL" (Physician Office Laboratory) studies. This indicates that the data was collected at the manufacturer's facility ("In-House") and potentially at various POL sites. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but given the 510(k) submission to the FDA, it is likely the studies align with US regulatory requirements and are potentially from US-based labs. The studies are prospective in nature, as they involve newly generated data to demonstrate the performance of the devices.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a clinical chemistry reagent and not an AI/ML device that generates interpretations requiring expert ground truth for image or diagnostic data. The "ground truth" in this context refers to the measured analyte concentrations obtained from established laboratory methods, calibrators, and reference materials.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This section is not applicable as the device is a clinical chemistry reagent. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in contexts like human reader studies for diagnostic imaging, where discordant interpretations need resolution by additional experts.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a clinical chemistry reagent. MRMC studies are designed to assess the performance of diagnostic devices or AI algorithms by multiple human readers across multiple cases, especially in imaging.

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

This section is not applicable as the device is a clinical chemistry reagent. This term is relevant for AI/ML diagnostic tools. The "performance" of this device is inherently standalone in that the instrument processes samples and generates quantitative results without human intervention in the measurement process itself, beyond sample loading and general operation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the performance studies presented is based on quantitative chemical measurements of the specific analytes (gamma-glutamyltransferase, lipase, total thyroxine) in control materials, patient samples, and comparison with established reference methods or predicate devices. This includes:

• Known concentrations: For precision, linearity, detection limits, and interference studies, samples with known or spiked concentrations are used.
• Comparison to predicate device: For method comparison studies, the results from the new device/system are compared against the results from the legally marketed predicate device/system.
• Reference materials/calibrators: The accuracy and calibration of the assays depend on traceable reference materials and calibrators.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This section is not applicable as the device is a clinical chemistry reagent and not an AI/ML device. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning model development.

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

This section is not applicable for the same reasons as #8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry System is an automated, discrete, bench-top, random access analyzer that is intended for in vitro diagnostic use in the quantitative determination of constituents in blood and other fluids.

The ACE TIBC Reagent is intended for the quantitative determination of total iron-binding capacity in serum using the ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry System. Iron-binding capacity measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of anemia. This test is intended for use in clinical laboratories or physician office laboratories. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

The ACE Serum Iron Reagent is intended for the quantitative determination of iron concentration in serum using the ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry System. Iron (non-heme) measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as iron deficiency anemia, hemochromatosis (a disease associated with widespread deposit in the tissues of two iron-containing pigments, hemosiderin and hemofuscin, and characterized by pigmentation of the skin), and chronic renal disease. This test is intended for use in clinical laboratories or physician office laboratories. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

The ACE Lipase Reagent is intended for the quantitative determination of lipase activity in serum using the ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry System. Lipase measurements are used in diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the pancreas such as acute pancreatitis and obstruction of the pancreatic duct. This test is intended for use in clinical laboratories or physician office laboratories. For in vitro diagnostic use only.

The ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry System consists of two major components, the chemistry instrument and an integrated Panel PC. The instrument accepts the physical patient samples, performs the appropriate optical or potentiometric measurements on those samples and communicates that data to an integral Panel PC. The Panel PC uses keyboard or touch screen input to manually enter a variety of data, control and accept data from the instrument, manage and maintain system information and generate reports relative to patient status and instrument performance. The Panel PC also allows remote download of patient requisitions and upload of patient results via a standard interface.

In the ACE Direct Total Iron-Binding Capacity (TIBC) Reagent assay, Direct TIBC Color Reagent, an acidic buffer containing an iron-binding dye and ferric chloride, is added to the serum sample. The low pH of Direct TIBC Color Reagent releases iron from transferrin. The iron then forms a colored complex with the dye. The colored complex at the end of the first step represents both the serum iron and excess iron already present in Direct TIBC Color Reagent. Direct TIBC Buffer, a neutral buffer, is then added, shifting the pH and resulting in a large increase in the affinity of transferrin for iron. The serum transferrin rapidly binds the iron by abstracting it from the dye-iron complex. The observed decrease in absorbance of the colored dye-iron complex is directly proportional to the total iron-binding capacity of the serum sample. The absorbance is measured at 647 nm.

In the ACE Serum Iron Reagent assay, transferrin-bound iron in serum is released at an acidic pH and reduced from ferric to ferrous ions. These ions react with ferrozine to form a violet colored complex, which is measured bichromatically at 554 nm/692 nm. The intensity of color produced is directly proportional to the serum iron concentration.

In the ACE Lipase Reagent Assay, serum lipase acts on a natural substrate, 1,2-diglyceride, to liberate 2-monoglyceride. This is hydrolyzed by monoglyceride lipase (a highly specific enzyme for monoglyceride) into glycerol and free fatty acid. Glycerol kinase acts on glycerol to form glycerol-3-phosphate, which is in turn acted on by glycerol-3-phosphate oxidase to generate hydrogen peroxide. Peroxidase converts the hydrogen peroxide, 4-Aminoantipyrine and TOOS (N-ethyl-N-(2-hydroxy-3-sulfopropyl)-m-toluidine) into a quinine dye. The rate of formation of the dye, determined bichromatically at an absorbance of 573 nm/692 nm, is proportional to the lipase activity in the sample.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the ACE Direct Total Iron-Binding Capacity (TIBC) Reagent, ACE Serum Iron Reagent, and ACE Lipase Reagent, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Within-run CV: 0.9% to 2.2%
• Total CV: 2.0% to 3.3%
  POL Sites:
• Within-run CV: 0.9% to 3.4%
• Total CV: 0.9% to 4.1% |
  | Accuracy (Correlation to Predicate) | High correlation coefficient, low standard error, slope near 1, intercept near 0 when compared to predicate device. | Lab (109 samples):
• Correlation Coefficient: 0.9950
• Standard Error Estimate: 9.1
• Confidence Interval Slope: 0.961 to 0.998
• Confidence Interval Intercept: -9.2 to 4.3
  POL Sites:
• Correlation Coefficients: 0.9902 to 0.9987
• Standard Error Estimates: 6.1 to 11.2
• Confidence Interval Slopes: 0.923 to 1.006
• Confidence Interval Intercepts: -8.2 to 19.4 |
  | Detection Limit | Low enough to be clinically useful. | 42.21 µg/dL |
  | ACE Serum Iron Reagent |
  | Precision | Low within-run and total CV for various Serum Iron levels. | Lab Testing:
• Within-run CV: 1.2% to 5.2%
• Total CV: 1.3% to 5.4%
  POL Sites:
• Within-run CV: 1.2% to 4.1%
• Total CV: 1.2% to 4.2% |
  | Accuracy (Correlation to Predicate) | High correlation coefficient, low standard error, slope near 1, intercept near 0 when compared to predicate device. | Lab (130 samples):
• Correlation Coefficient: 0.9995
• Standard Error Estimate: 3.3
• Confidence Interval Slope: 1.000 to 1.012
• Confidence Interval Intercept: -2.7 to -1.0
  POL Sites:
• Correlation Coefficients: 0.9992 to 0.9998
• Standard Error Estimates: 6.1 to 11.2
• Confidence Interval Slopes: 0.997 to 1.041
• Confidence Interval Intercepts: -2.7 to 9.2 |
  | Detection Limit | Low enough to be clinically useful. | 5.08 µg/dL |
  | ACE Lipase Reagent |
  | Precision | Low within-run and total CV for various lipase levels. | Lab Testing:
• Within-run CV: 1.1% to 6.5%
• Total CV: 6.0% to 10.7%
  POL Sites:
• Within-run CV: "to 7.3%" (lower bound not specified)
• Total CV: 1.9% to 7.3% |
  | Accuracy (Correlation to Predicate) | High correlation coefficient, low standard error, slope near 1, intercept near 0 when compared to predicate device. | Lab (107 samples):
• Correlation Coefficient: 0.9980
• Standard Error Estimate: 9.06
• Confidence Interval Slope: 0.970 to 0.994
• Confidence Interval Intercept: 1.97 to 5.97
  POL Sites:
• Correlation Coefficients: 0.9993 to 0.9997
• Standard Error Estimates: 4.44 to 7.89
• Confidence Interval Slopes: 1.002 to 1.047
• Confidence Interval Intercepts: -4.74 to 3.41 |
  | Detection Limit | Low enough to be clinically useful. | 10.63 U/L |

Note: The acceptance criteria are "implied" because the document primarily presents the results of the performance data without explicitly stating the pre-defined target values or ranges that were aimed for. However, the context of a 510(k) submission requires demonstrating substantial equivalence, meaning the performance should be comparable to the predicate device. Therefore, the reported data, particularly the high correlation coefficients, slopes near 1, and intercepts near 0 for accuracy, indicate that these outcomes met whatever internal acceptance criteria were set for demonstrating equivalency. For precision, low CVs are generally accepted as good performance.

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

• ACE Direct Total Iron-Binding Capacity (TIBC) Reagent:

  • Sample Size:
    • Accuracy (correlation study): 109 samples
    • Precision (lab): 4 TIBC levels tested for 22 days.
    • Precision (POL sites): 3 separate POL sites, testing over 5 days (number of samples not specified, but likely multiple runs per site per day).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but the testing occurred at "Physician Office Laboratory (POL) sites" and an unnamed central lab. It is not specified if the data is retrospective or prospective, nor the country of origin.

• ACE Serum Iron Reagent:

  • Sample Size:
    • Accuracy (correlation study): 130 samples
    • Precision (lab): 4 Serum Iron levels tested for 22 days.
    • Precision (POL sites): 3 separate POL sites, testing over 5 days (number of samples not specified).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but testing occurred at "Physician Office Laboratory (POL) sites" and an unnamed central lab. Retrospective or prospective nature and country of origin are not specified.

• ACE Lipase Reagent:

  • Sample Size:
    • Accuracy (correlation study): 107 samples
    • Precision (lab): 3 lipase levels tested for 22 days.
    • Precision (POL sites): 3 separate POL sites, testing over 5 days (number of samples not specified).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but testing occurred at "Physician Office Laboratory (POL) sites" and an unnamed central lab. Retrospective or prospective nature and country of origin are not specified.

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 given text. The ground truth for these types of in vitro diagnostic tests is typically established by measurements from a reference method or a predicate device. The text indicates that the "Alfa Wassermann ACE Clinical Chemistry System" was used as the comparator (predicate device) (referred to as 'x' in the regression analyses).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable and therefore, not provided. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in studies involving subjective interpretation, such as by human readers of medical images, to resolve discrepancies in diagnoses. These clinical chemistry devices produce quantitative numerical results, which are then compared statistically to a reference method or predicate device, rather than adjudicated.

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 information is not applicable as the described devices are in vitro diagnostic clinical chemistry reagents and an automated system (ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry System), not AI-assisted imaging or diagnostic tools designed for human readers to interpret. Therefore, an MRMC study and effects on human reader performance are not relevant to this submission.

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

Yes, the studies described are standalone performance studies of the device and reagents. The ACE Axcel Clinical Chemistry System is an "automated, discrete, bench-top, random access analyzer." The performance data presented (precision, accuracy, detection limit) are measurements of the system's ability to quantitatively determine analytes directly, without a human interpretation step that would introduce a "human-in-the-loop" component in the result generation itself. The results quantify the device's inherent measurement capabilities.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for these studies was established by comparison to a legally marketed predicate device, the "Alfa Wassermann ACE Clinical Chemistry System" (specifically, the ACE Reagents K000781, K944911 run on the K931786 system). This is a common method for demonstrating substantial equivalence for in vitro diagnostic devices in 510(k) submissions. The new device's measurements (y) were correlated against the predicate device's measurements (x).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided and is generally not applicable in the context of these types of in vitro diagnostic submissions for clinical chemistry reagents and analyzers. The device described does not employ a machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "training" of such a device primarily involves rigorous internal calibration procedures and validation during its development and manufacturing, which are distinct from the concept of a "training set" for AI/ML models.

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

As explained in point 8, the concept of a "training set" requiring ground truth establishment in this manner is not applicable to this type of device and submission. The device's operational parameters are set through design, engineering, and calibration processes, not machine learning model training.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Precision Systems™ ANALETTE™ Chemistry Analyzer is intended for the quantitative determination of Calcium, Creatinine, Phosphorus, Albumin, Total Protein, Glucose, Urea Nitrogen, Magnesium, Creatine Kinase, Alkaline Phosphatase, Carbon Dioxide, Amylase, Cholesterol(includes HDL), Triglycerides, Total Bilirubin, Direct Bilirubin, Uric Acid, Lactate Dehydrogenase L, Lactate Dehydrogenase P, Alanine Aminotransferase. Aspartate Aminotransferase; Gamma Glutamyl Transferase, Lipase, Chloride, and etc. analytes in solution such as serum, plasma, or urine. It is an "open" System, which can use a variety of commercially manufactured reagents such as but not limited to Synermeds® Reagents and Medical Analysis Systems Reagents. It is used to monitor various physiological diseases or conditions. Precision Systems Inc will distribute, recommend and sales MAS Reagents without any modification of MAS packaging using PSI Applications sheets.

An in vitro diagnostic automated clinical chemistry analyzer for the analysis of analytes in solution.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the ANALETTE™ clinical chemistry analyzer and Medical Analysis Systems Reagents:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text describes a submission for substantial equivalence (510(k)) for the ANALETTE™ clinical chemistry analyzer using Medical Analysis Systems (MAS) Reagents, comparing it to the same ANALETTE™ analyzer using Synermeds® 072 reagents (the predicate device). The core of the acceptance criteria here is the demonstration of "substantial equivalence" of the new reagent system to the predicate. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria are not explicitly detailed in the provided text in the form of numerical thresholds for accuracy, precision, or comparison studies. Instead, the performance section broadly states:

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

The document states that "comparative studies" were conducted. However, it does not provide any details regarding the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature).

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. For a clinical chemistry analyzer, the ground truth is typically established by reference methods or highly accurate laboratory instruments rather than expert adjudication in the way it would be for image-based diagnostics.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

This information is not applicable in the context of a clinical chemistry analyzer's performance evaluation as described. Ground truth is established through analytical measurements, not through human adjudication of diagnostic findings. Therefore, no adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 would be used.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done for this device. MRMC studies are typically used for diagnostic imaging devices where human interpretation is a critical component, often comparing human readers with and without AI assistance. This device is a clinical chemistry analyzer, which provides quantitative measurements directly.

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

The performance described for the ANALETTE™ clinical chemistry analyzer with MAS reagents is inherently a standalone performance in the context of the instrument measuring analyte concentrations. There is no "human-in-the-loop" performance component in the direct measurement by the analyzer. The comparison is between two reagent systems on the same analyzer, assessing the analytical performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for this type of device (a clinical chemistry analyzer) would typically be established by:

• Reference standard methods: Highly accurate and precise laboratory methods, often more complex or expensive than routine clinical tests.
• Certified reference materials: Samples with known, validated concentrations of the analytes.
• Comparison to the predicate device: For a 510(k) submission seeking substantial equivalence, the performance of the new device (or reagent system) is directly compared to the legally marketed predicate device using patient samples and/or quality control materials. The predicate device's results serve as the pragmatic "ground truth" for demonstrating equivalence in a clinical setting.

The document implies the latter, stating "Substantially equivalence was established in comparative studies," meaning performance was compared against the predicate system.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided in the document. Clinical chemistry analyzers and their associated reagents are developed through analytical validation, which involves extensive testing, but the term "training set" is more commonly associated with machine learning algorithms. If there were any computational models or algorithms within the analyzer's software that required training (which is not explicitly indicated as relevant here beyond basic instrument calibration), the details of such a training set are absent.

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

Since no "training set" in the machine learning sense is explicitly mentioned or detailed, and the focus is on analytical performance comparison (substantial equivalence), the method for establishing ground truth for a training set is not applicable or provided. The development of a clinical chemistry reagent kit involves rigorous analytical validation, where performance characteristics like accuracy, precision, linearity, and interference are established using known standards and patient samples, rather than a "ground truth for training" in the way an AI model would be trained.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Olympus AU5400 Clinical Chemistry Analyzer is a fully automated photometric analyzer intended for clinical laboratory use. Applications include colorimetric, turbidimetric, latex agglutination, and homogeneous enzyme immunoassay.

The Olympus AU5400 Clinical Chemistry Analyzer is a fully automated photometric analyzer.

While the provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for the Olympus AU5400 Clinical Chemistry Analyzer, it does not contain the detailed performance study results, acceptance criteria, or ground truth information typically found in the actual 510(k) submission or a scientific publication.

The letter confirms that the device has been found substantially equivalent to predicate devices, meaning it is considered safe and effective for its indicated use. However, it does not explicitly state the specific performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), the thresholds for acceptance of those metrics, or the specifics of the validation study.

Therefore, I cannot populate all the requested fields from the given text. I can only infer some information based on the nature of a 510(k) submission for a clinical chemistry analyzer.

Here's what I can convey based on the provided document and general understanding of 510(k) submissions for similar devices:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in the provided letter. For a clinical chemistry analyzer, acceptance criteria would typically involve demonstrating analytical performance similar to or better than a predicate device across various parameters, including:

  • Accuracy: Agreement with a reference method.
  • Precision (Reproducibility & Repeatability): Consistency of results.
  • Linearity: Accuracy across the analytical measurement range.
  • Detection Limits: Lowest concentration that can be reliably measured.
  • Interference: Lack of significant impact from common interfering substances.
  • Carry-over: Minimal contamination between samples.
  • Stability: Reagent and calibration stability.
  • Correlation: Strong correlation with predicate device or reference method.

• Reported Device Performance: Not explicitly stated in the provided letter. The 510(k) submission would have contained data supporting these performance characteristics, demonstrating that the device meets the established acceptance criteria. The FDA's clearance implies that this evidence was found satisfactory.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided letter. For a clinical chemistry analyzer, test sets would include a variety of patient samples (normal, abnormal) and spiked samples to assess different analytical aspects.
• Data Provenance: Not specified in the provided letter. Typically, clinical chemistry analyzer validation involves prospective collection of patient samples, often from multiple sites to ensure representativeness, as well as characterization of control materials.

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

• Experts and Qualifications: Not specified in the provided letter. For clinical chemistry analyzers, "ground truth" for analytical performance is typically established through:
  • Reference interval studies: Involving a statistically significant number of healthy individuals.
  • Comparison studies: Against a recognized reference method or a legally marketed predicate device, where the predicate device's results serve as the comparison standard.
  • Control materials and calibrators: With known, certified values.
  • Analytical experts (e.g., clinical chemists, laboratory directors) would be involved in designing and overseeing these studies, and interpreting the results.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable in the traditional sense for analytical performance of a clinical chemistry analyzer. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically used for subjective interpretations, such as image analysis or pathology review, where expert opinion is directly establishing "ground truth." For an automated analyzer, the output is quantitative, and performance is assessed against established analytical standards or comparison methods.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• MRMC Study: Not applicable. MRMC studies are used to evaluate human reader performance, often with AI assistance, for tasks involving interpretation (e.g., radiology). The Olympus AU5400 is an automated clinical chemistry analyzer that produces quantitative results, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging tool with human interpretation.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Standalone Performance: As an automated analyzer, the device's performance is inherently "standalone" in generating the quantitative results. The entire 510(k) submission would be focused on demonstrating this standalone analytical performance. However, there's no "algorithm only without human-in-the-loop" contrast needed, as the device's function is to perform the chemical analysis automatically.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Ground Truth Type: For a clinical chemistry analyzer, the "ground truth" is typically established through:
  • Reference methods: Highly accurate and validated analytical methods.
  • Certified reference materials/calibrators: Materials with known, traceable analyte concentrations.
  • Comparison to a legally marketed predicate device: Demonstrating equivalent performance to a device already on the market.
  • Pathology/Outcomes data: Would generally not be the primary "ground truth" for the analytical performance of the analyzer itself, though the results generated by the analyzer would be used in conjunction with such data for clinical decision-making.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable in the conventional machine learning sense. This device is a traditional analytical instrument, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" to learn its function. Its operational parameters are determined by its design, engineering tolerances, and chemical principles, not by training on a dataset.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for a traditional clinical chemistry analyzer. The device's calibration involves using calibrator materials with known concentrations, but this is part of routine operation and quality control, not "training" in the ML sense.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ILab 600 is an automated, random access clinical chemistry analyzer which uses analytical techniques (photometry and potentiometry) for the in vitro quantitation of analytes found in physiological fluids such as serum, plasma, urine and cerebrospinal fluid. The results of the measurements are used as medical diagnostic tools.

The ILab 600 is an automated, random access clinical chemistry analyzer which uses analytical techniques (photometry and potentiometry) for the in virro quantitation of analytes found in physiological fluids such as serum, plasma, urine and cerebrospinal fluid. The results of the measurements are used as medical diagnostic tools.

The ILab 600 Clinical Chemistry System is an automated, random access clinical chemistry analyzer that quantifies analytes in physiological fluids using photometry and potentiometry. The device was found substantially equivalent to the ILab 900/1800 Clinical Chemistry System (K932467, K943595) and IL Test assays (K943366, K952646, K943367, K952647).

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the ILab 600 are implicit in its claim of substantial equivalence to the predicate device, the ILab 900. This means the performance of the ILab 600 must be "statistically similar" to that of the ILab 900 across various analytes and sample types (serum, urine, cerebrospinal fluid).

The reported device performance is demonstrated through method comparison studies and precision studies.

Method Comparison Studies (ILab 600 vs. ILab 900):

Precision Studies (ILab 600):

• Serum Samples: Two levels of serum samples (three for Cholesterol) were tested in triplicate twice a day for 10 days (n=60 total). The Total %CV for most analytes was generally low, indicating good precision. For example:
  • Albumin: Level 1 (1.79%), Level 2 (1.08%)
  • ALT/GPT: Level 1 (1.26%), Level 2 (0.99%)
  • Cholesterol: Level 1 (2.11%), Level 2 (1.35%), Level 3 (1.37%)
  • ISE Sodium: Level 1 (0.94%), Level 2 (0.67%)
• Urine Samples: Two levels of urine samples were tested in triplicate twice a day for 10 days (n=60 total). Similar to serum, Total %CV remained low:
  • Amylase: Level 1 (2.56%), Level 2 (2.02%)
  • Creatinine: Level 1 (2.11%), Level 2 (1.73%)
  • ISE Sodium: Level 1 (1.13%), Level 2 (0.65%)
• Cerebrospinal Fluid Samples: Two levels of CSF samples were tested using IL Test Glucose Oxidase in triplicate twice a day for 5 days (n=30 total).
  • Glucose Oxidase: Level 1 (1.49%), Level 2 (0.98%)

The studies conclude that the ILab 600 and ILab 900 are "statistically similar" for the tests evaluated. The precision studies demonstrate acceptable levels of reproducibility based on the reported Coefficient of Variation (%CV) values for within-run, among-run, among-day, and total precision. No specific numerical thresholds for acceptance criteria were explicitly stated, but the robust statistical similarity and low %CV values imply the device meets the necessary performance standards for clinical use.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Test Set (Method Comparison):

  • Serum Samples: Sample sizes ranged from a minimum of 64 (Lipase) to a maximum of 137 (Glucose Oxidase).
  • Urine Samples: Sample sizes ranged from 49 (ISE Potassium and Sodium) to 95 (Glucose Hexokinase).
  • Cerebrospinal Fluid Samples: Sample size was 20 (Glucose Oxidase).
  • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

• Test Set (Precision Studies):

  • Serum Samples: n=60 for most analytes (triplicate measurements, twice a day, for 10 days). Cholesterol used n=60 across three levels.
  • Urine Samples: n=60 for all analytes (triplicate measurements, twice a day, for 10 days).
  • Cerebrospinal Fluid Samples: n=30 for Glucose Oxidase (triplicate measurements, twice a day, for 5 days).
  • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document pertains to the performance characteristics of a clinical chemistry analyzer, which measures quantitative values of analytes. The "ground truth" in this context refers to the actual concentration of the analytes in the samples. Clinical chemistry analyzer performance is typically evaluated by comparing results to a reference method (in this case, the predicate device ILab 900) or by using certified reference materials with known concentrations. Therefore, expert interpretation or consensus, as might be used in image-based diagnostic AI, is not applicable here. No mention of human experts defining "ground truth" is provided or expected.

4. Adjudication Method

Not applicable. As described in point 3, this is a quantitative measurement device, not an interpretation task requiring adjudication of expert opinions.

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

Not applicable. The device is a clinical chemistry analyzer, not an AI system assisting human readers in diagnostic interpretation. The study evaluates the analyzer's performance directly against a predicate device and for precision, not the human reader's effectiveness with or without AI.

6. Standalone Performance Study

Yes, standalone performance was done.

• Method Comparison Studies: The performance of the ILab 600 was compared directly to that of the ILab 900 (predicate device). This is a standalone comparison of the new device against an established one.
• Precision Studies: The precision of the ILab 600 was evaluated independently, measuring its reproducibility across different runs and days. This is also a standalone performance evaluation of the device itself.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for these studies is the quantitative analytical result obtained from the predicate device (ILab 900) for method comparison studies, and the inherent, measured concentration within the biological samples for precision studies. This is a form of reference method comparison or analytical accuracy assessment, rather than pathology, expert consensus, or outcomes data, which are typically associated with qualitative or interpretative diagnostics. For precision, the ground truth is implicitly the true, stable concentration in the control/patient samples being repeatedly measured.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. The ILab 600 is a clinical chemistry analyzer, which operates based on established chemical and photometric/potentiometric principles and internal calibration curves. It is not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set" in the sense of supervised learning. Its analytical methods are pre-programmed and validated, not learned from data in the way a machine learning algorithm would be.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device. The device's operational parameters and calibration are established through engineering design and standard laboratory calibration procedures, not through a data-driven training process.

Ask a specific question about this device

COBAS INTEGRA Ammonia (NH3): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of the ammonia concentration in plasma (test NH3, 0-045).

COBAS INTEGRA aAmylase EPS (AMYLL): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of the catalytic activity of amylase in serum, plasma (test AMY-L, 0998) and urine (test AMY-UL 0-999).

COBAS INTEGRA Cholesterol (CHOLL): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of total cholesterol (test CHOLL, 0-001) and HDL cholesterol concentration in serum and plasma in clinical laboratories.

COBAS INTEGRA HDL Cholesterol Application (HDLL): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of total cholesterol and HDL - cholesterol (test HDLL, 0-002) concentration in serum and plasma in clinical laboratories.

COBAS INTEGRA Creatinine Enzymatic (CREAE): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of the creatinine concentration in serum (test CREAE, 0-014), and urine (test CREEU, 0-114).

COBAS INTEGRA Digitoxin (DIGIT): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of digitoxin in serum or heparinized plasma (test DIGIT 0-259).

COBAS INTEGRA Gamma Glutamyltransferase (GGTL): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of the catalytic activity of GGT, (EC 2.3.2.2; y-glutamyl peptide: amino acid y-glutamyltransferase) in serum and plasma (test GGTL, 0-599).

COBAS INTEGRA Glucose HK Liquid (GLUCL): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of the glucose concentration in serum, plasma (test GLUL, 0-991), urine (test GLULU, 0-992), and cerebrospinal fluid (test GLULC, 0-993).

COBAS INTEGRA Lipase (LIPL): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of the catalytic activity of lipase in serum and plasma (test LIPL, 0-200).

COBAS INTEGRA Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the qualitative determination of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in urine (test LSD, 0-001)

COBAS INTEGRA Urea/BUN (UREAL): contains an in vitro diagnostic reagent system intended for use on COBAS INTEGRA for the quantitative determination of the urea/BUN (blood urea nitrogen), in serum, plasma (test UREL, 0-003) and urine (test URELU, 0-004).

Roche TDM OnLine Digitoxin Calibrators: are intended for use with the Roche reagents for Digitoxin and the COBAS Chemistry systems for the quantitative determination of digitoxin in serum and plasma.

Roche TDM OnLine Digitoxin Controls: are quality control samples intended for use on COBAS chemistry systems with Roche reagents and calibrators for the quantitative determination of digitoxin assays.

The COBAS INTEGRA test applications contained in this submission are intended for use with the COBAS INTEGRA Analyzer. The COBAS INTEGRA Analyzer and COBAS INTEGRA Reagent cassettes together provide an integrated system for in vitro diagnostic testing. The COBAS INTEGRA Analyzer utilizes three measuring principles, i.e., absorbance, fluorescence polarization and ion-selective electrodes. The analyzer has a throughput of up to 600 tests per hour with STAT samples prioritized and tested immediately. Random sample access, robotics and a user interface optimize time management and streamline workflow. The COBAS INTEGRA can store up to 68 COBAS INTEGRA Reagent Cassettes on board, 24 hours a day at 2-8℃. The COBAS INTEGRA Reagent Cassettes are compact and preparation-free with the added convenience of long term on-board stability. Barcode readers are used to identify newly loaded reagent cassettes, samples for patient identification, and rack inserts and to read calibration and control data from the cassette label. COBAS INTEGRA tests include chemistry, drugs of abuse, immunology, ion selective electrodes, therapeutic drug monitoring, and hematology reagents. Through this submission, it is the intention of Roche Diagnostic Systems to gain clearance for an additional 4 COBAS INTEGRA Reagent Cassettes and 2 ancillary reagents as well as modifications to 7 previously cleared COBAS INTEGRA Reagent Cassettes. These reagents have been modified from granulate to liquid form.

The provided 510(k) summary (K972250) describes the acceptance criteria and study results for several Roche COBAS INTEGRA Reagent Cassettes and ancillary reagents. The studies are primarily focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing de novo performance criteria against a fixed clinical standard. Consequently, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by the results of the comparative studies to be within acceptable analytical performance limits for equivalent devices.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information for each reagent, based on the provided text:

Roche COBAS® INTEGRA Reagent Cassettes & Ancillary Reagents (K972250)

The acceptance criteria are generally implied by the strong correlation and similar performance characteristics (assay range, precision, sensitivity, accuracy/linearity) when compared to the legally marketed predicate devices. The study's goal was to demonstrate substantial equivalence, meaning the new device performs comparably to the predicate.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for these in vitro diagnostic devices are demonstrated through a comparison of their performance characteristics (Assay Range, Precision, Sensitivity, Accuracy/Correlation Coefficient, and Linear Regression) against legally marketed predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is the performance of the COBAS INTEGRA (Liquid) reagents. The "acceptance criteria" are implied to be within comparable ranges to the predicate devices, indicating substantial equivalence.

Note: For each test, the predicate device's performance is presented alongside the new device's performance, and the linear regression typically shows correlation against the predicate. This comparative approach is the core of the acceptance criteria.

Ammonia (NH3)

Creatinine (CREAE) - Serum and Plasma

Creatinine (CREAE) - Urine

Digitoxin (DIGIT)

Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)

Note: For LSD, precision is presented in Optical Density (O.D.) for the new device vs. ng/mL for the predicate, making direct comparison of mean values challenging. However, the %CV for within-run are similar.

α-Amylase (AMYLL) - Serum and Plasma

α-Amylase (AMYLL) - Urine

Cholesterol (CHOLL)

HDL-Cholesterol Application (HDLL)

Note: There seems to be a typo for %CV (within run) in Level 1 of the HDLL liquid reagent (1.51.3).

Gamma-Glutamyltransferase (GGTL)

Glucose (GLUCL) - Serum and Plasma

Glucose (GLUCL) - Urine

Glucose (GLUCL) - CSF

Lipase (LIPL)

Urea/BUN (UREAL) - Serum and Plasma

Urea/BUN (UREAL) - Urine

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

The sample sizes for accuracy/correlation studies are provided in the tables above under "Sample size (n)". These values range from 114 to 240 for quantitative assays and 39 (positive) for LSD.

The data provenance is not explicitly stated as "country of origin" or "retrospective/prospective." However, given the context of a 510(k) submission for in vitro diagnostic reagents by Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc. (located in Somerville, New Jersey, USA), it is highly likely these studies were conducted in a clinical laboratory setting in the USA. The studies are presented as direct comparisons between the new liquid reagents and existing granulate reagents or other legally marketed devices, implying they are prospective comparative studies assessing analytical performance.

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

For these chemical assays (e.g., ammonia, creatinine, cholesterol) and therapeutic drug monitoring (digitoxin), "ground truth" is typically established by the quantitative results of the predicate device or a reference method. The document does not mention "experts" in the sense of human readers adjudicating results, as these are quantitative in vitro diagnostic tests. The ground truth is the measured concentration or activity of the analyte as determined by the accepted reference method or predicate device functionality.

For LSD, which involves qualitative detection, the "ground truth" against which the COBAS INTEGRA LSD was compared appears to be GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry), which is a gold standard analytical method for drug detection. The document does not specify the qualifications of individuals performing these GC/MS analyses or interpreting the results, but they would be trained laboratory personnel.

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

No adjudication method is mentioned. For these types of quantitative and qualitative analytical tests, "adjudication" by experts in the context of diagnostic imaging or pathology interpretation is not applicable. The comparison is based on numerical results compared to an established method or predicate.

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 was conducted. This type of study is relevant for medical imaging or pathology devices where human interpretation is a key component, often assisted by AI. The submitted devices are reagents for automated clinical analyzers, where the output is a numerical value or a qualitative positive/negative result, not an image requiring human interpretation. Therefore, there's no mention of AI assistance or human reader improvement.

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

Yes, the studies presented are effectively standalone performance evaluations of the reagent-analyzer system. These are not "algorithm-only" studies in the modern AI sense, but rather a direct assessment of the analytical performance of the new liquid reagent format on the COBAS INTEGRA Analyzer. The results (e.g., assay range, precision, accuracy) reflect the performance of the integrated system without direct human-in-the-loop interpretation impacting the primary measurement.

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

The type of ground truth used varies slightly based on the assay, but generally involves:

• Quantitative Assays (Ammonia, Creatinine, Cholesterol, HDL-Cholesterol, GGT, Glucose, Lipase, Urea/BUN): The ground truth for these assays is the quantitative result obtained from the predicate device method. The accuracy is assessed by correlating the results of the new liquid reagents with the predicate (often the granulate version of the same Roche COBAS INTEGRA reagents or another established method like Abbott TDx/TDxFLx for Digitoxin). Linear regression analysis is used to demonstrate agreement.
• Qualitative Assay (LSD): The ground truth for LSD detection is established by a more definitive analytical method, specifically Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly delineate a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI development. For these chemical assays, the development of the reagents and their formulation would involve extensive R&D and optimization, which could be considered an iterative development process, but it's not described as a distinct "training set" with separate ground truth establishment. The data presented in the tables are for validation or verification of the final product.

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

As there is no explicitly defined "training set" in the submitted documentation related to AI/ML, there is no description of how ground truth for such a set was established. The development of reagents relies on established chemical and biochemical principles, and performance characteristics are determined through standard analytical validation procedures using reference materials and comparative studies against predicate methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SYNCHRON Systems Lipase (LIPA) Reagent, in conjunction with SYNCHRON® Systems Lipase Calibrator, is intended for use in the quantitative determination of pancreatic lipase activity in serum or plasma samples. This assay is designed for use with clinical chemistry analyzers from Beckman Instruments, such as the SYNCHRON CX® and LX™ Clinical Systems.

This assay is designed for use with clinical chemistry analyzers from Beckman Instruments, such as the SYNCHRON CX® AND LX™ Clinical Systems. The SYNCHRON Systems Lipase (LIPA) Reagent, when used in coniunction with SYCNRHON Systems Lipase Calibrator, is intended for use in the quantitative determination of pancreatic lipase activity in serum or plasma samples. Lipase measurements are used in diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the pancreas such as acute pancreatitis and obstruction of the pancreatic duct.

The provided text describes the performance data for the SYNCHRON Systems Lipase (LIPA) Reagent. Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" but presents performance data that would be used to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The predicate device is the SYNCHRON Systems Lipase Reagent on the CX System. The new device is the SYNCHRON Systems Lipase Reagent on the LX System.

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

• Sample Size for Method Comparison: 91 samples (n=91) were used for the method comparison study between the SYNCHRON Systems Lipase Reagent on the LX System and the predicate system (SYNCHRON Systems Lipase Reagent on the CX System).
• Sample Size for Imprecision: 80 samples (n=80) were used for each of the three levels of imprecision testing (within-run and total imprecision).
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective. It is implied to be internal testing conducted by Beckman Instruments, Inc.

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

This information is not applicable as this is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device for quantitative biochemical measurement, not an AI or imaging device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for this device is the actual lipase activity in the samples, determined by the predicate device or a reference method.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 3. Adjudication usually pertains to discrepancies in human interpretation, which is not relevant here.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

This information is not applicable. This is an IVD device for automated quantitative analysis, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers.

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

The performance reported is inherently "standalone" in the context of an automated IVD chemistry analyzer. The SYNCHRON Systems Lipase Reagent on the LX System performs the quantitative determination of pancreatic lipase activity without human involvement in the measurement process itself, beyond loading samples and calibrators. The reported slope, intercept, correlation, and imprecision are characteristics of the reagent and analyzer system.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The ground truth for the method comparison study was established by the predicate method, specifically the "SYNCHRON Systems Lipase Reagent on the CX System." For linearity and imprecision studies, the "ground truth" would be established by the known concentrations/activities of quality control materials or reference methods.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable. This IVD device is a chemical reagent and an analyzer system, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a "training set" in the computational sense. The performance characteristics are derived from chemical reactions and instrument calibration.

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

This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device