Search Results

The RPS Adeno Detector Plus is a rapid immunoassay test for the visual, qualitative in vitro detection of Adenoviral antigens (hexon protein) directly from human eye fluid. The test is intended for professional use as an aid in the rapid differential diagnosis of acute conjunctivitis.

Negative results do not preclude Adenovirus infection nor are thev intended to rule out other microbial-caused infections of the conjunctiva. and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other management decisions.

The RPS Adeno Detector Plus™ consists of three (3) parts: a Sample Collector, an immunoassay test strip in a plastic Test Cassette housing, and a Buffer. The Sample Collector is used to take a sample of ocular fluid. The separately packaged and sterile Sample Collector has a contoured end with a Dacron fleece to collect the samples. The plastic housing of the Test Cassette body protects the strip from unintended physical influence. Additionally the housing guarantees correct sample transfer onto the lateral flow assay strip. The Buffer is a buffered salt solution containing proteins, detergents and preservatives. The Buffer functions as the solution that initiates the test, extracts the Adenoviral proteins, filters unwanted cellular debris, and transports the immune complex and the control conjugate to the Test and Control Lines on the test strip membrane.

Mechanism of action - RPS Adeno Detector Plus™ is based on the principle of lateral flow immunoassays using Direct Sampling Micro-filtration technology. Viral particles or virus antigens are captured by an antigen specific antibody. A single monoclonal antibody highly specific to the Adenoviral hexon protein is labeled with colloidal gold and also is immobilized as the Test Line.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the RPS Adeno Detector Plus™, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state pre-defined acceptance criteria in terms of target sensitivity, specificity, etc. However, the reported performance from the clinical trial is provided. We can infer that the reported values met the unstated acceptance criteria for the FDA to issue a substantial equivalence determination.

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

• Sample Size: N = 128 (Total number of patients in the clinical trial).
• Data Provenance: The study design was a prospective, sequential, masked, clinical trial with eight (8) Clinical Trial Sites. The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the sponsor is based in Sarasota, FL, USA, suggesting the clinical trial was likely conducted in the United States.

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

• The ground truth was established by Cell Culture. This is a laboratory diagnostic method and does not involve human experts establishing a subjective ground truth for the test set.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable, as the ground truth was established by Cell Culture, which is an objective laboratory method. There was no mention of human adjudication for the Cell Culture results themselves.

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

• No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This study solely evaluated the performance of the device against a gold standard (Cell Culture) and did not involve human readers comparing performance with and without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The clinical trial directly assessed the RPS Adeno Detector Plus™ performance (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) against Cell Culture, without any human interaction influencing the device's reading or interpretation for the purpose of the study's primary endpoint. The device itself is a rapid immunoassay test designed for "visual, qualitative in vitro detection," implying human visual interpretation, but the reported performance metrics are for the device's ability to accurately detect Adenovirus compared to culture.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth used was Cell Culture, which is a laboratory-based gold standard for detecting the presence of Adenovirus.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size. This device is a rapid immunoassay test, not a machine learning or AI-based algorithm that typically requires a distinct training phase with a dedicated dataset. Its development would involve analytical testing and validation rather than "training" in the AI sense.

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

• Given that a training set is not mentioned and the device is an immunoassay, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set in the context of an algorithm's learning is not applicable. The immunoassay operates based on biochemical reactions with a fixed design. Its "training" would be more akin to optimizing reagents and manufacturing processes through bench testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Diagnostic Hybrids, Inc. device, D3 FastPoint L-DFA Parainfluenza Virus/Adenovirus Identification Kit is intended for the qualitative identification of adenovirus and to screen for the presence of parainfluenza virus types 1, 2, and 3 in nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs and aspirates/washes specimens from patients with signs and symptoms of respiratory infection by direct detection of immunofluorescence using monoclonal antibodies (MAbs).

It is recommended that specimens found to be negative for parainfluenza virus and adenovirus after examination of the direct specimen result be confirmed by cell culture. Negative results do not preclude parainfluenza virus and adenovirus infection and should not be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment or other management decisions.

The D3 FastPoint L-DFA Parainfluenza Virus/Adenovirus Identification Kit (D3 FastPoint PIV/ADV Kit) uses a blend (called an "L-DFA Reagent") of viral antigen-specific murine monoclonal antibodies that are directly labeled with either R-phycoerythin (PE) (parainfluenza virus types 1, 2 and 3) or fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) (adenovirus) for the qualitative identification of adenovirus and to screen for the presence of parainfluenza virus types 1, 2, and 3.

The cells to be tested are derived from respiratory specimens from patients with signs and symptoms of respiratory infection. The cells are permeabilized and stained concurrently in a liquid suspension format with the L-DFA Reagent. After incubating at 35℃ to 37℃ for 5-minutes, the stained cell suspensions are rinsed with 1X PBS. The rinsed cells are pelleted by centrifugation and then re-suspended with the Resuspension Buffer and loaded onto a specimen slide well. The cells are examined using a fluorescence microscope. Cells infected with parainfluenza virus types 1, 2 and 3 will exhibit golden-yellow fluorescence. Cells infected with adenovirus will exhibit apple green fluorescence due to the FITC. Non-infected cells will exhibit red fluorescence due to the Evans Blue counter-stain. Nuclei of intact cells will exhibit orange-red fluorescence due to the propidium iodide.

Here's an analysis of the provided document regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the D3 FastPoint L-DFA Parainfluenza Virus/Adenovirus Identification Kit:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a numerical target format (e.g., "sensitivity must be >90%"). Instead, it presents the achieved performance metrics in comparison to a composite comparator method (FDA-cleared device + viral culture). For the purpose of this table, I'll extract the reported performance from the clinical study, which implicitly serves as the demonstration of meeting acceptable clinical performance for substantial equivalence.

Acceptance Criteria (Implied by Study Results & Predicate Equivalence) and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set (Clinical Performance Study):

  • Total Specimen Sample Size: 1519 specimens (across all age groups and specimen types).
  • NP Wash/Aspirate (Combined Sites 1, 2, 3):
    • Parainfluenza Virus: 628 specimens
    • Adenovirus: 632 specimens
  • NP Swab (Combined Sites 3, 4):
    • Parainfluenza Virus: 682 specimens
    • Adenovirus: 681 specimens
  • Data Provenance: Prospective, collected from 4 geographically diverse U.S. clinical laboratories during the 2009 respiratory virus season (January-March 2009). The specimens were "excess, remnants of respiratory specimens that were prospectively collected from symptomatic individuals suspected of respiratory infection" and were de-identified.

• Test Set (Reproducibility Study):

  • Sample Size: A reproducibility panel consisting of 5 randomized panel members, tested daily in two separate runs for 5 days by four different laboratories (40 total runs). Each panel member contained defined levels of infected or non-infected cells.
  • Data Provenance: Not specified beyond being conducted by "four different laboratories." This would be part of a controlled laboratory study, not clinical specimens.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth (Clinical Test Set):

• The document does not explicitly state the number of experts (e.g., medical doctors, virologists) used to establish the ground truth for the clinical test set.
• Qualifications of Experts (Implied): The ground truth was established using a "composite comparator method" which included:
  • Direct Specimen Fluorescent Antibody (DSFA) test with an FDA-cleared device. This implies that the interpretation of the comparator DSFA test would have been performed by qualified laboratory personnel trained in using that specific FDA-cleared device.
  • Viral culture confirmation. This would have been performed by trained microbiologists or virologists capable of performing and interpreting viral cultures.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set (Clinical Study):

• Adjudication Method: The ground truth was established using a composite comparator method.
  • "True" positive was defined as any sample that either tested positive by the comparator DSFA test or viral culture.
  • "True" negative was defined as any sample that tested negative by both the comparator DSFA test and viral culture.
  • This is a form of adjudicated reference standard, where agreement between multiple methods (or sequential application of methods, as implied by "negatives followed by culture") establishes the "truth." This method is commonly used when a single perfect gold standard is not available or practical.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly described. The study focused on the standalone performance of the D3 FastPoint kit against a composite comparator. There is no mention of human readers using the D3 FastPoint kit with and without AI assistance (as would be the case for a typical MRMC study involving AI) nor an effect size for human reader improvement with AI.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

• Yes, a standalone study was performed. The clinical performance section directly assesses the D3 FastPoint L-DFA Parainfluenza Virus/Adenovirus Identification Kit's performance (device only, without human-in-the-loop assistance beyond the interpretation of the kit's results) against a composite comparator method. The sensitivity and specificity values reported in Tables 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9 represent this standalone performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used (Clinical Study):

• Composite Comparator Method: The ground truth for the clinical study was established using a composite comparator method. This method combined:
  • Performance of an existing FDA-cleared DSFA device.
  • Viral culture confirmation for all specimens negative by the initial comparator DSFA.
  • This combines elements of an established diagnostic method (FDA-cleared device) with a traditional gold standard for viral identification (viral culture).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not report on a training set sample size. This is because the device described is a diagnostic kit (reagents and controls for immunofluorescence), not an AI/machine learning algorithm that typically requires a distinct training phase. Performance is evaluated through analytical and clinical studies, not by training a model.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no training set described for an AI/machine learning model. The kit itself is the "algorithm" in a sense, and its performance is validated through analytical studies (reproducibility, LOD, inclusivity) and clinical studies against established comparator methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The RPS Adeno Detector is a rapid immunochromatography test for visual, qualitative in-vitro detection of adenoviral antigens (hexon protein) directly from human eye fluid. The test is intended for use as an aid in the rapid differential diagnosis of acute adenoviral conjunctivitis. All negative test results should be confirmed by cell culture.

The RPS Adeno Detector utilizes technology based on lateral flow immunochromatography. Adenoviral antigen, hexon protein, when present in the patient sample is captured between two antigen specific antibodies. One antibody is immobilized in the detection zone of the device. The second antibody is labeled with colloidal gold. The detector is a disposable, rapid test requiring 10 minutes for a result. The patient's lower eyelid is gently retracted to expose the inferior fornix. The eye fluid is collected on the sterile sample collector by gently swabbing the inferior fornix with the sampling pad on the test cover to gain a sample of tears for point of care analysis. The sample collector is reassembled to the immunoassay cassette. Sample transfer happens automatically. Analysis of the sample starts when the absorbant pad of the strip is dipped into a provided buffering solution. After 1-10 minutes, red colored lines in the read out area will appear. One line (control line) only indicates a (Adenoviral) negative result, where as two lines (control line and test line) indicate a (Adenoviral) positive result. It is best used within 7 days of developing a red eye consistent with infectious conjunctivitis.

The provided text describes the RPS Adeno Detector, a rapid immunochromatography test for the visual, qualitative in-vitro detection of adenoviral antigens from human eye fluid, intended as an aid in the rapid differential diagnosis of acute adenoviral conjunctivitis.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document implicitly defines the acceptance criteria by stating the clinical performance against the "gold standard" of viral cell culture. While explicit targets for sensitivity, specificity, and agreement are not clearly stated as "acceptance criteria," the reported performance metrics are presented as evidence of the device's suitability. For the purpose of this analysis, we will treat the reported performance values as the demonstrated achievement against an unstated but implied satisfactory threshold for market clearance.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: 175 samples
• Data Provenance: The document states, "A total of 175 samples were collected and tested from patients who developed a red eye consistent with infectious conjunctivitis within the last 7 days." This indicates the data is prospective and collected from patients presenting with symptoms. The country of origin is not specified in the provided text.

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

The ground truth for the test set was established using viral cell culture as the "gold standard." This is a laboratory-based method. The number of experts involved in interpreting the cell culture results and their specific qualifications are not detailed in the provided text. However, cell culture requires trained laboratory personnel.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

The document compares the RPS Adeno Detector's results directly against viral cell culture results. There is no mention of an adjudication method involving multiple human readers for the device's test results. It appears the device's output (presence/absence of two lines) was directly compared to the cell culture outcome.

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, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The RPS Adeno Detector is a standalone device producing a visual, qualitative result (lines), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Therefore, there is no discussion of human reader improvement with or without AI assistance.

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

Yes, a standalone study was done. The clinical performance data presented (sensitivity, specificity, etc.) directly reflects the performance of the RPS Adeno Detector device itself, without human interpretation influencing its diagnostic output. The device produces a visual, qualitative result (one line for negative, two lines for positive) that is read directly.

7. The type of ground truth used:

The type of ground truth used was viral cell culture, which is described as the "gold standard" for identifying adenovirus in conjunctival specimens.

8. The sample size for the training set:

The provided text does not mention a separate training set or its sample size. The "Clinical Studies" section describes a single set of 175 samples used for performance evaluation against the gold standard. For devices utilizing lateral flow immunochromatography (like the RPS Adeno Detector), the "training" typically refers to the development and optimization of the assay components and their interactions, rather than a machine learning training set with labeled data for an algorithm.

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

As no specific "training set" in the context of machine learning is indicated, this question is not directly applicable. If "training set" refers to samples used during the development and optimization phases of the immunoassay, the ground truth would have likely been established using viral cell culture or well-characterized adenovirus samples, similar to how the ground truth for the clinical study was established. However, the document does not provide details on this development process.

Ask a specific question about this device