Search Results

R&D Sickle QC Hematology Control is intended to be used as a sickle cell control in testing for the presence of Hemoglobin S in solubility tests.

Sickle QC is a control for solubility tests used to detect Hemoglobin S. Sickle QC is compatible with other manufacturer's solubility kits. The control contains human red blood cells that are processed and are suspended in an anti-microbial solution that completes the simulation of fresh whole blood.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the R&D Sickle QC Hematology Control, presented according to your requested format:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for R&D Sickle QC Hematology Control

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: "3 validation lots" were used for testing. The specific number of individual samples within these lots is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The data appears to be prospective as it describes "laboratory testing" that was conducted to validate the product. The country of origin is implicitly the United States, as the submission is to the U.S. FDA by R&D Systems, Inc., based in Minneapolis, MN.

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 the performance metrics (assay range, precision) would likely be established by the product specifications and analytical methods of the lab conducting the validation, rather than expert consensus on diagnostic images or clinical outcomes.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This information is not applicable and therefore not provided in the text. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in studies involving expert review of diagnostic cases where there might be disagreement (e.g., in medical image analysis). This is a laboratory control product, and its performance is evaluated against predefined analytical metrics.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI-assisted diagnostic tools that impact human interpretation of cases. The R&D Sickle QC Hematology Control is a laboratory control material, not a diagnostic device that humans interpret in conjunction with AI.

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

• Yes, a form of standalone performance evaluation was done. The "laboratory testing of 3 validation lots" directly assessed the performance characteristics (precision, stability within range) of the Sickle QC product itself, independent of human interpretation or assistance. It's important to note this isn't an "algorithm" in the typical AI sense, but rather the performance of the control material in a laboratory setting.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth for this device's performance is established by analytical specifications and established laboratory methods/standards. For example, the "assay range" would be a pre-defined range within which the control is expected to perform, and "precision" would be measured against statistical benchmarks for variability. It is not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• This information is not applicable and therefore not provided. The R&D Sickle QC Hematology Control is a physical control material, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

• This information is not applicable as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Sickle-Chex Solubility Kit is a qualitative solubility test kit for tasting the presence of sickling hemoglobins in human blood or sickle cell control materlal.

Sickle-Chex Solubility Kit consists of:

• Sickle-Chex Solubility Buffer; two LDPE bottles, each illied ville 100mL of a A. 2.3M potassium phosphate buffer solution containing Saponin.
• Sickle-Chex Reagent Powder; two glass vials, each filled with 4 grams of B. Sodium Hydrosulfite.
  The testing principles of the kit is based on NCCLS, H10-F.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Sickle-Chex Solubility Kit, with an emphasis on the acceptance criteria and supporting study details.

Important Note: The provided document is a 510(k) summary, which is a regulatory document filed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It typically summarizes studies and conclusions without going into granular detail on study designs, statistical methodologies, or all acceptance criteria. Therefore, some specific details requested (like exact sample sizes for test/training sets, blinding protocols, or multi-reader studies) are not explicitly stated in this document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The 510(k) summary for the Sickle-Chex Solubility Kit primarily focuses on demonstrating equivalence to a predicate device (Dade® Sickle-Sol™ Test) and confirming the product's stability and reliability. The acceptance criteria, while not explicitly listed as quantitative metrics in a table, can be inferred from the "Conclusions Drawn from the Tests."

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in the 510(k) summary. The document mentions "Off-site studies" and "in house studies," but does not provide the number of samples or cases used in these evaluations.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated. Given that Streck Laboratories is located in La Vista, NE (USA) and the regulatory body is the FDA (USA), it is highly probable the data was collected within the USA.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated. "Off-site studies" could be either, but often includes prospective testing in a laboratory setting. "In house studies" would also typically be prospective testing conducted by the manufacturer.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• Number of Experts: Not mentioned. This type of qualitative solubility test typically relies on direct chemical reaction observation, and the "ground truth" for evaluating the kit's performance would likely be established by comparing its qualitative results against established laboratory methods or reference materials.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not mentioned.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable or not mentioned. For a chemical solubility test, the "adjudication method" involving human experts reading results is usually not relevant in the same way it would be for image-based diagnostics. The ground truth for such a test is typically based on the chemical principle itself, or comparison to established reference methods/materials.

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

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This type of study is primarily relevant for diagnostic imaging devices where human readers interpret results, and the AI's impact on their performance is being evaluated. This device is a qualitative chemical test kit.
• Effect Size of AI Improvement: Not applicable, as no MRMC study was conducted and this is not an AI-assisted device.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Standalone Performance Study: Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was implicitly done. The "Off-site studies" that verified the performance against competitor kits, and the "in house" stability studies, represent the device's performance characteristics independent of human interpretation beyond recording the qualitative reaction. The device itself is the "algorithm" in this context, producing a qualitative result.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth for this type of device would typically be:
  • Reference Method Comparison: Comparing the results of the Sickle-Chex kit to a gold-standard or well-established method for detecting sickling hemoglobins (e.g., electrophoresis, or another validated solubility test).
  • Known Samples: Testing with control materials or patient samples with known sickle cell status (e.g., confirmed by genetic testing or other definitive methods).
  • Clinical Outcomes Data: Unlikely to be the primary ground truth for a qualitative screening test.
  • Expert Consensus: Unlikely to be the primary ground truth for a chemical reaction test.

The summary mentions "sickle cell control material" and "human blood," suggesting a combination of known samples and potentially clinical samples verified by other means.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable / not mentioned. This device is a chemical reagent kit, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a distinct "training set" in the computational sense. Its performance is based on its chemical formulation and reaction properties.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no "training set" or establishment of ground truth for such a set in the context of machine learning. The chemical properties and formulation are developed and refined through R&D and quality control, not via a machine learning training process.

Ask a specific question about this device

Sickle-Chex is intended to be used as a sickle cell control in testing for the presence of hemoglobin S in solubility tests and hemoglobin electrophoresis.

Sickle-Chex consists of Control materials for verifying performance of sickle cell hemoglobin testing systems. The controls contain human red blood cells and preservative suspension media packaged in a polyethylene dropper bottle with dispensing tip. Product fill is 2.5 ml per vial.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Sickle-Chex 510(k) notification, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

Disclaimer: This device is a quality control material, not a diagnostic device for direct patient use. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described are about the performance of the control material itself in verifying diagnostic tests, rather than its diagnostic accuracy on patient samples. Many of the questions provided in the prompt are more applicable to diagnostic devices, and the information in the 510(k) for a control material will naturally be different.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Proving Acceptance Criteria:

The provided text does not contain a detailed study section with explicit methodology, results, or statistical analysis to "prove" the device meets acceptance criteria in the way a diagnostic device would.

Instead, for a quality control material like Sickle-Chex, the "proof" primarily relies on:

• Manufacturing and Characterization: The control material is manufactured to contain human red blood cells with specific hemoglobin characteristics (presence of Hb S in the positive control, absence in the negative control).
• Intended Use Statements: The submission defines the intended use, which inherently outlines the expected performance: "The Positive Control will produce a positive test..." and "The Negative Control contains normal human red blood cells that will produce a negative test...". This is a statement of what the product is designed to do and what has been verified during its development.
• Substantial Equivalence: The FDA's 510(k) clearance is based on a determination of substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This means that the FDA found the Sickle-Chex to be as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device, likely by demonstrating similar performance characteristics through internal testing and possibly comparison to the predicate. The document refers to "Predicate product package insert and assay sheet," suggesting that the performance of Sickle-Chex was benchmarked against an existing similar product.

Without access to the full 510(k) submission, specific details of laboratory characterization and comparison to the predicate device are not available in the provided text.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in the provided text. For a control material, the "test set" would likely refer to a series of internal characterization tests and comparisons to a predicate device.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It can be inferred that any testing would have been conducted by Streck Laboratories, Inc. (USA) as part of their manufacturing and regulatory submission process.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not specified.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This concept of "experts establishing ground truth" is generally not applicable to the characterization of a quality control material. The "ground truth" for Sickle-Chex is inherent in its design and manufacturing:

• The Positive Control is designed to contain sickling hemoglobin (Hb S).
• The Negative Control is designed to contain normal hemoglobin.
  The presence or absence of Hb S would be determined through standard laboratory methods (e.g., electrophoresis, high-performance liquid chromatography, or other definitive assays) during the manufacturing and quality control process, not by expert consensus in the same way a diagnostic image might be interpreted.

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

Not applicable/not specified. Adjudication methods are typically used for interpreting subjective data (like imaging) from multiple human readers. For the characterization of a chemical/biological control, objective laboratory measurements are used, not human reader adjudication.

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

Not applicable. Sickle-Chex is a quality control material, not an AI diagnostic device. An MRMC study would not be performed for this product.

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

Not applicable. Sickle-Chex is a physical control material, not an algorithm or AI.

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

The "ground truth" for the Sickle-Chex controls is their inherent biochemical composition.

• The Positive Control contains human red blood cells with hemoglobin S. This is confirmed through definitive laboratory assays during its production.
• The Negative Control contains human red blood cells with normal hemoglobin. This is also confirmed through definitive laboratory assays.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. As above, this is not an AI/machine learning device.

Ask a specific question about this device

SICKLE-2000 is an in-vitro centrifugal solubility test that detects Hemoglobin S, the abnormal hemoglobin found in sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait.

SICKLE-2000 is an in-vitro centrifugal solubility test that detects Hemoglobin S, the abnormal hemoglobin found in sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for SICKLE-2000

This document outlines the acceptance criteria for the SICKLE-2000 device and details the studies conducted to demonstrate its performance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Based on the provided information, the acceptance criteria are implicitly derived from the comparative and blind studies, focusing on accurate identification of Hemoglobin S.

• In blind study (N=99), correctly identified all 59 normal samples and all 40 heterozygous S samples. |
  | Detection Limit | Detect Hemoglobin S at clinically relevant concentrations. | Detected Hemoglobin S at a concentration of 2.0g/dl using 10 heterozygous S samples. |
  | Interference | No significant interference from common blood components (lipemia, bilirubin, hemolysis). | - No triglyceride interference up to 1000mg/dl.
• Hemolysis does not interfere.
• Bilirubin interference:
  • Normal (AA) blood: No interference up to 60mg/dl.
  • Homozygous (SS) blood: No interference up to 60mg/dl.
  • Heterozygous (AS) blood: No interference up to 15mg/dl. At 30 mg/dl and 60 mg/dl, the aqueous phase shows color changes (orange/darker) but implied non-interference to result. |
    | Stability | Maintain performance over a specified shelf life. | - Accelerated aging indicated no significant change in activity over a two-year period.
• Real-time stability studies indicated product is good for at least 12 months. |

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

• Test Set 1 (Comparison Study):
  • Sample Size: 87 patients.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implies clinical samples used for comparison with a predicate device. Retrospective or prospective nature is not specified.
• Test Set 2 (Blind Study):
  • Sample Size: 99 samples (59 normal, 40 heterozygous S).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but implied to be clinical samples previously tested by hemoglobin electrophoresis. Retrospective or prospective nature is not specified.
• Test Set 3 (Detection Limit Study):
  • Sample Size: 10 heterozygous S samples.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated.

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

The document does not explicitly mention the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test sets.

• For Test Set 1 (Comparison Study), the ground truth was implicitly established by the results of the predicate device, Sicklequik, and blood typing for Hemoglobin S (66 contained no Hb S, 15 AS, 6 SS).
• For Test Set 2 (Blind Study), the ground truth for the 99 samples was established by "hemoglobin electrophoresis," which is a standard laboratory method, rather than expert consensus on device results. This implies a gold standard laboratory method was the ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The ground truth was established by laboratory methods (predicate device results, hemoglobin electrophoresis) rather than subjective expert interpretation requiring adjudication.

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

Not applicable. This device is an in-vitro diagnostic test, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that involves human readers interpreting images or data with and without AI assistance to improve their performance.

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 SICKLE-2000 device itself. The device is an in-vitro centrifugal solubility test, and its results are read directly, not requiring human interpretation in conjunction with an algorithm's output. The "blind study" specifically tests the device's ability to correctly identify samples without human bias.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Test Set 1 (Comparison Study): The ground truth was primarily the results obtained from the predicate device, Sicklequik, and the classification of blood samples based on the presence/absence and type of Hemoglobin S (no Hb S, AS, SS). This can be considered a comparative ground truth against an established method.
• For Test Set 2 (Blind Study): The ground truth was established by hemoglobin electrophoresis, which is a definitive laboratory method for identifying hemoglobin types.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention a "training set" in the context of device development or machine learning. The studies described are performance validation studies.

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

Not applicable, as no training set (in the context of machine learning) is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device