Search Results

The SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test is an immunofluorescence assay intended for the qualitative detection of Clostridioides difficile toxins A and/or B in human stool specimens. The test is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile infection (CDI) in patients exhibiting symptoms of CDI. Negative results do not preclude toxigenic C. difficile infection. The SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other management decisions. The test can only be used with the MultiPath platform.

The SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test detects toxins A and B in stool samples using an immunofluorescence assay and the proprietary MultiPath detection technology. The assay is performed on the proprietary MultiPath Analyzer. A stool sample is added to Stool Specimen Diluent, processed through a spin column, and the filtrate is added to the SensiTox C. difficile Cartridge. The Cartridge is loaded onto the MultiPath Analyzer for processing. The Analyzer reads barcodes, heats the cartridge, splits the sample into aliquots, mixes with antibody conjugated fluorescent and magnetic particles, and incubates. Magnetic particles and tethered fluorescent particles are drawn to the bottom imaging surface by magnets and imaged and quantified using non-magnified digital imaging. Results are interpreted by the MultiPath applications software.

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

Device: SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the performance metrics reported, as these are the benchmarks the device aims to meet.

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

• Clinical Study Test Set Sample Size: 1046 human stool specimens.
• Data Provenance: Prospective clinical study performed at three geographically diverse sites in the US. The samples were "left over de-identified, unpreserved, stool specimens from patients suspected of having C. difficile infection." This indicates a prospective collection for the purpose of the study, though using "left over" specimens.

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 ground truth for the clinical study was established by the Cellular Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay (CCNA), which is a laboratory method, not human expert interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the ground truth was established by a laboratory assay (CCNA), not by human adjudication of clinical images or interpretations.

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. The SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test is an in vitro diagnostic device that directly detects toxins in stool samples using an immunofluorescence assay run on an automated analyzer. It is not an AI-assisted imaging device or a tool that directly assists human readers/interpreters in a diagnostic workflow where their performance would be measured with and without AI.

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

Yes, the performance data presented is for the device operating in a standalone capacity (algorithm only). The MultiPath Analyzer interprets the results using its applications software, reporting "toxin detected" or "toxin not detected" automatically. There is no human interpretative step described for the SensiTox C. difficile Toxin Test's output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Bench Studies (LoD, Reproducibility, Analytical Reactivity, Analytical Specificity, Interfering Substances): The ground truth was established using known spiked samples (purified toxins, cultured organisms, interfering substances) in negative pooled stool.
• Clinical Performance Evaluation: The ground truth was established by the Cellular Cytotoxicity Neutralization Assay (CCNA). CCNA is a traditional laboratory method for detecting C. difficile toxins and is considered a gold standard for toxin activity.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not provided in the document. The document describes a "test set" for clinical performance evaluation but does not specify a separate "training set" with its sample size for the development of the device's analytical interpretation software. Given this is an in vitro diagnostic device, the "training" would likely involve optimizing the assay chemistry and the MultiPath Analyzer's ability to detect the fluorescent signals, rather than a machine learning model trained on a large dataset of patient samples.

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

Since the document does not mention a distinct "training set" in the context of machine learning, the establishment of ground truth for any internal development or optimization of the device would implicitly involve the same methods used for the bench studies: controlled experiments with known concentrations of purified toxins and known negative samples, and potentially comparisons to established laboratory methods like CCNA during early development. The document focuses on the validation studies, not necessarily the development phase details.

Ask a specific question about this device

The cobas® Cdiff Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas® Liat® System is an automated, qualitative in vitro diagnostic test, that utilizes real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), for the detection of the toxin B (tcdB) gene of toxigenic Clostridium difficile in unformed (liquid or soft) stool specimens suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI). The cobas® Cdiff Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas® Liat® System is intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of CDI in humans in conjunction with clinical and epidemiological risk factors.

The cobas® Cdiff Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas® Liat® System (cobas® Cdiff ) is a rapid, automated in vitro diagnostic test for the qualitative detection of C. difficile DNA in human stool specimens. The cobas® Liat® System is for in vitro diagnostic use. The system is designed to identify and/or measure the presence of genetic material in a biological sample. The system automates all nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) processes, including reagent preparation, target enrichment, inhibitor removal, nucleic acid extraction, amplification, real-time detection, and result interpretation in a rapid manner. The cobas® Cdiff test uses silica magnetic particle-based nucleic acid extraction and TaqMan probe-based real-time PCR amplification and detection. The cobas® Liat® Analyzer automates and integrates sample purification, nucleic acid amplification and detection of the target sequence in biological samples. Other than adding the sample to the cobas® Cdiff assay tube, no reagent preparation or additional steps are required. The cobas® Liat® System consists of an cobas® Liat® Analyzer with integrated software for running tests and analyzing the results, and a single-use disposable cobas® Cdiff assay tube that holds all of the sample purification and PCR reagents and hosts the sample preparation and PCR processes specific for the Cdiff analyte. The test uses the assay tube as both the sample and reaction vessel. The assay tube comprises flexible tubing containing all required unit dose reagents pre-packed in tube segments, separated by pressure-sensitive seals, in the order of reagent use. During the testing process, multiple sample processing actuators of the analyzer compress the cobas® Cdiff assay tube to selectively release reagents from tube segments, move the sample from one segment to another, and control reaction conditions such as reaction volume, temperature, pressure, and incubation time. Precise control of all these parameters provides optimal conditions for assay reactions, allowing the test to achieve high performance similar to or better than that of currently available molecular assays. The cobas® Liat® Analyzer software controls and coordinated these actions to perform all required assay processes, including sample preparation, nucleic acid extraction, target enrichment, inhibitor removal, nucleic acid elution, and real-time PCR. All assay steps are performed within the closed and self-contained cobas® Cdiff assay tube, thereby eliminating the potential for cross-contamination between samples. The collected data are automatically analyzed and the result is displayed in the assay report on the integrated LCD touch screen of the cobas® Liat® Analyzer.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for cobas® Cdiff Nucleic acid test for use on the cobas® Liat® System

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" in a separate section with numerical targets like a typical clinical trial report for an AI device. Instead, the performance metrics are presented as the results of the studies conducted. I will infer the acceptance criteria from the reported performance, implying that the reported values met the internal standards set by the manufacturer for substantial equivalence.

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

• Analytical Sensitivity (LOD): Not specified as a per-sample-size, but replicates of each 5-member test panel were tested with 2 different lots of assay tubes. Additional replicates were tested for confirmation.
• Inclusivity: 3 replicates per strain (37 toxigenic strains) were tested.
• Analytical Specificity (Cross-reactivity): Not specified as a per-sample-size, but 149 non-toxigenic organisms/cells were tested.
• Interference: Not specified as a per-sample-size, but 38 commonly used medications, fecal fat, whole blood, and mucin were tested.
• Reproducibility: 818 total tests were performed, with 798 valid for analysis across 3 panel members (Negative, ~1xLOD, ~3xLOD). 3 replicates per panel member, run on 5 nonconsecutive days by 2 operators at 3 sites for 3 reagent lots.
• Clinical Performance: 1,013 evaluable fresh remnant stool specimens were prospectively collected.
  • Data Provenance:
    • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but "Nine (9) study sites from geographically diverse locations participated in this study." This suggests a multi-center study, likely within a single country (such as the US, given the FDA submission) or potentially across a few countries, but a specific list is not provided.
    • Retrospective/Prospective: The clinical performance study was prospective. "Evaluable fresh remnant specimens were prospectively collected from 1,013 patients."

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

• Analytical (LOD, Inclusivity, Specificity, Interference): Not applicable for these studies as the "ground truth" is based on engineered samples (known concentrations of specific strains, or presence/absence of interfering substances).
• Reproducibility: Not applicable, as this assessed the consistency of the device's own results, not against an external ground truth.
• Clinical Performance:
  • Number of experts: Not explicitly stated.
  • Qualifications of experts: Not explicitly stated. The "ground truth" was established by "combined results of direct and enriched toxigenic culture using leftover, deidentified, unformed stool samples" performed at a "reference laboratory." The document mentions "Nineteen (19) operators distributed across these study sites performed testing with the cobas® Cdiff test," but these are operators, not necessarily the adjudicating experts for the ground truth. For microbiological culture, laboratory personnel with specific training in microbiology would establish the ground truth.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Analytical, Reproducibility: Not applicable.
• Clinical Performance:
  • Initial Ground Truth: "Combined results of direct and enriched toxigenic culture" served as the primary comparative method.
  • Discrepant Analysis: "All evaluable discordant specimens and an equal number of randomly selected and representative concordant samples were used for discrepant testing by an FDA-cleared comparator NAAT. Testing was performed at an external lab that was preselected and qualified by RMS." This implies a form of 2-method consensus with a third method for discrepancies. If direct and enrichment culture disagreed, or if the cobas test disagreed with the combined culture, a third (comparator NAAT) test was used for "discrepant analysis." However, the final clinical performance tables still directly compare the cobas test to the combined culture results, with the discrepant analysis results discussed qualitatively ("Of the 23 specimens with false-negative cobas® Cdiff test results relative to combined direct culture and enrichment culture, 19 were negative. 3 were positive and 1 was invalid by the second NAAT method.").

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) test, not an imaging AI device that relies on human-in-the-loop interpretation. The clinical study compares the device's output to laboratory culture results, not to human readers' interpretations with or without AI assistance.

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

• Yes, the performance presented is purely standalone (algorithm/device only). The cobas® Cdiff Nucleic acid test is an automated, qualitative in vitro diagnostic test. The device provides "result interpretation" directly on its integrated LCD touch screen (page 5). The clinical performance data reflects the device's ability to detect the target gene independently, compared against culture methods.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Analytical Studies (LOD, Inclusivity, Specificity, Interference): Lab-prepared spiked samples with known concentrations/compositions.
• Clinical Performance: Microbiological culture results. Specifically, "combined results of direct and enriched toxigenic culture." A "second NAAT method" was used for discrepant analysis.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable / Not explicitly stated. This is a molecular diagnostic test for Clostridium difficile, not a machine learning or AI algorithm in the typical sense that requires explicit "training data" for a model to learn from. The assay uses predefined primers and probes for real-time PCR detection (page 4). While the assay design and optimization would involve extensive internal development and testing, this is not characterized as a "training set" in the context of typical AI algorithm development.

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

• Not applicable / Not explicitly stated. As mentioned above, this is not an AI/ML device that uses a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "ground truth" for developing the test was based on well-characterized isolates of C. difficile and other microorganisms to design and validate the specificity and sensitivity of the primers and probes.

Ask a specific question about this device

hemoFISH Masterpanel is a qualitative nucleic acid hybridization assay performed directly on blood culture samples identified as positive by a continuous monitoring blood culture system that demonstrates the presence of organisms as determined by Gram stain and is intended for the identification of the following species / families:

Gram-positive: Staphylococcus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus spp.
Gram-negative: Enterobacteriaceae, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae

The hemoFISH Masterpanel is indicated as an aid in the diagnosis of bacteremia and results should be used in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings. Positive hemoFISH Masterpanel results do not rule out coinfection with organisms not included in the hemoFISH Masterpanel is not intended to monitor treatment for bacteremia.

Subculturing of positive blood cultures is necessary to recover organisms for susceptibility testing and epidemiological typing, to identify organisms in the blood culture that are not identified by the hemoFISH Masterpanel, and for species determination of Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., and Enterobacteriaceae that are not identified by the hemoFISH Masterpanel.

The hemoFISH Masterpanel identifies bacteria within 30 minutes directly from positive blood cultures.

The methodology is based on classical fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) combined with the usage of fluorescently labeled molecular beacons.

A solution of fluorescently labeled molecular DNA beacons is dispensed on fixed and perforated cells prepared from a blood culture. The hybridization is carried out at 52°C for 10 minutes. Submerging the slide into a bath containing a stop solution ceases the reaction. Adding a drop of Mounting Medium to each field prevents fading of fluorescence. After applying a cover slip, the slide is ready for examination using fluorescence microscopy.

The hemoFISH Masterpanel is a qualitative nucleic acid hybridization assay designed for the rapid identification of specific bacterial species/families directly from positive blood culture samples. It utilizes fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) with molecular DNA probes.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a separate table with specific numerical thresholds for sensitivity and specificity that the device must meet. Instead, it presents the results of its performance studies, implying that these results are considered acceptable for substantial equivalence.

However, based on the "Performance Characteristics" section, we can infer the de-facto acceptance criteria by examining the reported performance and the overall conclusion of substantial equivalence. The key performance metrics are Sensitivity (Positive Agreement) and Specificity (Negative Agreement) against routine laboratory methods.

Here's a table summarizing the reported device performance, which the FDA implicitly accepted as meeting the criteria for substantial equivalence:

Table 1: Reported Device Performance (Monomicrobial Cultures, Prospective and Spiked Samples Combined)

Note: The numbers in parentheses for each target agent represent the number of samples identified as such by the "Routine Identification" (ground truth).

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size:

  • Clinical Studies (Monomicrobial): 609 prospective blood culture bottles + 61 in-house spiked (monomicrobial) blood culture bottles = 670 monomicrobial blood cultures (combined in Table 3).
  • Clinical Studies (Polymicrobial): 55 polymicrobial prospective blood culture bottles (analyzed separately in Table 4).
  • Analytical Inclusivity: 120 representative reference strains.
  • Analytical Specificity: 215 strains representing clinical relevant species and/or species selected based on sequence similarities.
  • Limit of Detection (LoD): Not specified for the number of strains, but "≥19/20 replicates (≥95%) were positive at 10^3 CFU/mL" for each tested species.
  • Reproducibility: 90 tests per strain (3 slides/strain tested by 2 different operators on 2 x five consecutive days).

• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the clinical data. It mentions "3 clinical laboratory studies." Given the submitter's location (Düsseldorf, Germany), it's highly probable that the clinical studies were conducted in Germany or Europe, though this is not confirmed. The data appears to be prospective for the main clinical method comparison study, with additional in-house spiked samples (retrospective/controlled laboratory setting).

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications involved in establishing the ground truth for the clinical test set. The ground truth for the clinical studies was established by "routine laboratory methods" (e.g., culture, biochemical tests, mass spectrometry, or other conventional microbiology methods), which are presumed to be performed by qualified laboratory personnel following established protocols.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not mention any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for discordant results between the hemoFISH Masterpanel and the routine laboratory methods. The "routine identification" is presented as the reference standard.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is a diagnostic assay, and the performance evaluation focused on its agreement with standard laboratory identification methods, not on how human readers (e.g., clinicians or microbiologists) improve their diagnostic performance with or without AI assistance. The interpretation of the device results is "Visual by fluorescence microscopy" and is a direct output from the assay, not an interpretation by a human of an AI output.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

The study primarily evaluates the standalone performance of the hemoFISH Masterpanel assay. The "visual by fluorescence microscopy" interpretation refers to a direct reading of the assay's output, not an algorithm's output. There isn't an "algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance" in the typical sense of AI-driven image analysis. The device itself performs the detection (hybridization and fluorescence), and the "visual" part is the human reading the output. This is a traditional IVD, not an AI/ML-driven device in the sense of image interpretation.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for the clinical studies was "routine identification" based on standard laboratory methods, which typically involve microbial culture and subsequent identification techniques (e.g., Gram stain, biochemical tests, mass spectrometry, gene sequencing).

For analytical studies:

• Analytical Inclusivity/Specificity: Determined using "representative reference strains" with known identities.
• LoD: Spiked blood culture bottles with known reference strains.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify an explicit "training set" sample size in the context of machine learning. As a traditional IVD (fluorescence in-situ hybridization assay), this device does not typically undergo a "training" phase like an AI/ML model. The design and validation of the probes (the core "method" of the device) are based on molecular biology principles and analytical testing, not iterative learning from a large dataset.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Since there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning for this traditional IVD, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set does not apply. The development of the hemoFISH Masterpanel involved designing specific DNA probes to target ribosomal RNA sequences of the target organisms. The "ground truth" during this development (analogous to a training phase) would have involved:

• Bioinformatics: In silico analysis of ribosomal RNA sequences to design highly specific and inclusive probes.
• Analytical validation: Testing probe performance against a wide range of known bacterial strains (as mentioned in the Analytical Inclusivity and Specificity sections) to confirm their binding specificity and sensitivity. These analytical studies are part of the device development and validation, not a separate "training set" as understood in AI/ML.

Ask a specific question about this device

VIDAS® C. difficile GDH (GDH) is an automated test based on the Enzyme Linked Fluorescent Assay technique (ELFA), for use on the VIDAS family instruments. The VIDAS C. difficile GDH (glutamate dehydrogenase) assay is a qualitative test that detects the C. difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase, as a screen for the presence of C. difficile in fecal specimens from persons suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI). The test does not distinguish toxigenic from non-toxigenic strains of C. difficile. With the use of additional tests that detect C. difficile toxins, the test is to be used as an aid in the diagnosis of C. difficile infection. As with other C. difficile tests, results should be considered in conjunction with the patient history.

The VIDAS® C. difficile GDH assay principle combines a two-step enzyme immunoassay sandwich method with a final fluorescent detection (ELFA). The Solid Phase Receptacle (SPR®) serves as the solid phase as well as the pipetting device. Reagents for the assay are ready-to-use and are pre-dispensed in the sealed reagent strips. All of the assay steps are performed automatically by the instrument. The reaction medium is cycled in and out of the SPR several times. Each step is followed by a wash cycle which eliminates unbound components. Specific binding of GDH present in the sample with mouse monoclonal anti-GDH antibody coated on the interior of the SPR. Binding between GDH and mouse monoclonal anti-GDH antibody conjugated with alkaline phosphatase (ALP). Detection: alkaline phosphatase catalyzes the hydrolysis of the substrate (4-Methylumbellifery! phosphate) into a fluorescent product (4-Methy-umbelliferone) the fluorescence of which is measured at 450 nm. The intensity of the fluorescence increases according to the quantity of GDH in the sample. When the VIDAS C. difficile GDH test is completed, the results are analyzed automatically by the instrument, a test value is generated, and a result is printed for each sample.

The provided document describes the VIDAS® C. difficile GDH assay, intended for the detection of C. difficile antigen glutamate dehydrogenase in fecal specimens.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria for clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) in a pass/fail format. However, it presents the results of clinical studies against two different reference methods. The "Performance" rows in the tables below can be considered the reported device performance.

Against CCFA Bacterial Culture (Reference Standard)

Against C. difficile Chromogenic Media Bacterial Culture (Reference Standard)

Against a Commercially Available C. difficile GDH Assay (Comparison Study)

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

• Sample Size: 1904 stool samples (1891 prospective and 13 retrospective).
• Data Provenance: The samples were collected from patients suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI) at three sites across the USA and Europe.

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

The document does not specify the exact number of experts involved in establishing the ground truth or their specific qualifications (e.g., radiologist with X years of experience). The ground truth was established by bacterial culture tests (CCFA and C. difficile chromogenic media) performed "according to the instructions for use." This implies standard laboratory practices would have been followed, likely by trained laboratory personnel.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not mention any adjudication method for resolving discordant results between the device and the ground truth. It presents the raw comparison data against the reference methods.

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

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study is for a diagnostic assay, and the studies described are evaluations of the assay's performance against reference methods and another commercially available assay.

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

Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The VIDAS® C. difficile GDH assay is an automated test, and the reported clinical sensitivity, specificity, and agreement data reflect the performance of the algorithm only (the automated instrument) without additional human interpretation or intervention in the diagnostic decision once the test is run. The instrument generates a test value and prints a result for each sample automatically.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

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

• CCFA bacterial culture test
• C. difficile chromogenic medium bacterial culture test

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" or its size. This is common for diagnostic assays where the development process typically involves internal optimization and validation, and then external clinical validation (the "test set" described) against a gold standard. The clinical study described served as the validation (test) set.

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

As no specific training set is outlined in the document, there's no information on how its ground truth might have been established. However, for diagnostic assays, internal development and optimization would generally rely on well-characterized samples with confirmed positive and negative status, likely through similar gold standard methods like bacterial culture, to establish parameters like cut-off values.

Ask a specific question about this device

Not Found

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the "Gram-Negative QuickFISH™ BC Blood Culture Identification Kit." This letter grants market clearance based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, but it does not contain the detailed study information, acceptance criteria, or performance data typically found in the 510(k) submission itself.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, study details (sample size, data provenance, expert qualifications, ground truth methods), or the specifics of standalone or MRMC studies from this document.

To answer your questions, I would need access to the actual 510(k) submission for K123418, which would include the clinical and analytical study reports.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

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

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

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

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

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

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

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

• No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This study focuses on an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay (PCR) for detecting a pathogen, not on human readers interpreting images or data with or without AI assistance. Therefore, there is no effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

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

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH is a rapid qualitative enzyme immunoassay screening test to detect Clostridium difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase, in fecal specimens from persons suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI). This test does not distinguish between toxigenic and non-toxigenic strains of C. difficile. Samples from patients that produce positive results with this test must be further tested with an assay designed to detect toxigenic C. difficile strains and assist with the diagnosis of CDI.

ImmunoCord C. difficile GDH is a rapid qualitative enzyme immunoassay screening test to detect Clostridium difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), in fecal specimens from persons suspected of having C. difficile infection. The assay consists of ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH Test Cards containing immobilized polyclonal anti-C. difficile GDH antibodies, ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH Positive Control, ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH Sample Diluent/Negative Control, ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH Enzyme Conjugate, ImmunoCard Wash Buffer I, and ImmunoCard Substrate I.

Here's an analysis of the ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH device based on the provided document, addressing the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for sensitivity and specificity are not explicitly stated as distinct "acceptance criteria" beyond the presented performance metrics. However, based on the desire to demonstrate substantial equivalence, the reported performance of the ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH is compared to bacterial culture as the reference.

(Note: The document implies these performance levels are the acceptance criteria for regulatory submission as they are the key clinical performance results presented for review.)

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

• Sample Size (Clinical Test Set): 975 qualified patient samples.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: United States (Midwestern, Southwestern, and Western regions).
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Prospectively collected.

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

The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of "experts" used to establish the ground truth. The ground truth was established by bacterial C. difficile culture, which is a laboratory-based method. The performance of the culture itself would typically be overseen by trained laboratory personnel, but no specific "experts" for truth adjudication are mentioned outside of the methodology.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

There is no mention of an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1 for the clinical test set. The ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH assay results were directly compared to the results of bacterial C. difficile culture.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, if so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is not an AI-based device, but rather a rapid qualitative enzyme immunoassay (EIA) intended for screening.

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

This question is not applicable in the context of this device. The ImmunoCard C. difficile GDH is itself a "standalone" diagnostic test (an EIA) that produces a visual read (positive/negative) which is then interpreted by a human. There is no separate "algorithm only" performance reported, as the human interpretation of the visual reaction is an inherent part of the device's function.

7. The type of ground truth used

The type of ground truth used for the clinical performance comparison was bacterial C. difficile culture.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. This is a traditional immunoassay. However, if we interpret "training set" as the samples used for initial development and optimization of the assay prior to clinical validation, that information is not detailed here. The analytical studies (sensitivity, interference, cross-reactivity, strain reactivity) involved various spiked and natural samples, but these are not referred to as a "training set" in the sense of a machine learning model.

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

As there is no distinct "training set" described in the machine learning sense, the establishment of its ground truth is not applicable. For the analytical studies (e.g., sensitivity, cross-reactivity), the ground truth was established by:

• Known concentrations of C. difficile GDH antigen (for analytical sensitivity/limit of detection).
• Known presence or absence of specific microorganisms/substances (for interference and cross-reactivity studies).
• Confirmed C. difficile stock cultures (for strain reactivity).

Ask a specific question about this device

Premier C. difficile GDH is a qualitative enzyme immunoassay screening test to detect Clostridium difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase, in fecal specimens from symptomatic persons suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI). This test does not distinguish between toxigenic strains of C. difficile. Samples from symptomatic patients that produce positive results with this test must be further tested with an assay designed to detect toxigenic C. difficile strains and assist with the diagnosis of CDI.

Premier C. difficile GDH is a qualitative enzyme immunoassay screening test to detect Clostridium difficile antigen, glutamate dehydrogenase, in fecal specimens from symptomatic persons suspected of having C. difficile infection (CDI). The assay consists of Premier C. difficile GDH Microwells coated with polyclonal antibodies specific to C. difficile GDH, Premier C. difficile GDH Enzyme Conjugate, Premier 20X Wash Buffer II, Premier Substrate I, Premier Stop Solution I, Premier C. difficile GDH Sample Diluent/Negative Control, and Premier C. difficile GDH Positive Control.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study findings for the Premier C. difficile GDH assay, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document implicitly defines acceptance criteria through the reported performance characteristics. The primary measure of clinical performance is the comparison to bacterial C. difficile culture.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Clinical Study)

Study Information

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: 733 qualified patient samples.
   • Data Provenance: The data was collected prospectively (clinical trials conducted from November 2011) from independent clinical test sites located in the Midwestern and Southwestern regions of the United States. Gender and age ranges were reported (22 days to 99 years).

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

   • The document states that the performance characteristics were determined by comparison to bacterial C. difficile culture. It does not mention the use of human experts to establish ground truth for the clinical test set; rather, the gold standard for diagnosis was a laboratory method (bacterial culture).

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Since the ground truth was established by bacterial C. difficile culture, an expert adjudication method (like 2+1, 3+1) was not described or necessary. The comparison was directly against the culture results.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is an Enzyme Immunoassay (ELISA) kit, which is a laboratory test where results are read spectrophotometrically or visually from a microplate, not an imaging device requiring human interpretation of complex visual data. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" is not applicable.

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

   • Yes, the clinical performance described (sensitivity, specificity, correlation) represents the standalone performance of the Premier C. difficile GDH assay. It is an "algorithm only" in the sense that it is a biochemical assay designed to yield a direct result (positive/negative) based on antigen detection, without human interpretation influencing the diagnostic outcome beyond standard laboratory procedures (e.g., pipetting, reading the spectrophotometer).

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

   • The ground truth used for the clinical performance evaluation was bacterial C. difficile culture.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not explicitly state a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI models. For an ELISA kit, development typically involves analytical studies (sensitivity, specificity, interference, cross-reactivity, strain reactivity) and then clinical validation. The "analytical sensitivity" study used 45 replicates for each measurand. The "reproducibility" panels involved blind-coded samples tested multiple times. These studies contribute to the device's development and validation but are not a "training set" in the common AI sense.

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

   • Again, the concept of a "training set" in the AI sense is not directly applicable. For the analytical studies, the "ground truth" (e.g., known concentration of C. difficile GDH antigen, presence/absence of interfering substances, known microorganisms) was established through controlled laboratory spiking and preparation of contrived samples. For the broader validation, bacterial C. difficile culture served as the reference standard.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

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

Study Details

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

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

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

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

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. The sample size for the training set:

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

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device