Search Results

The CareSuperb™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Combo Home Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A and influenza B nucleoprotein antigens and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigens directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. Symptoms of respiratory infections due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza can be similar. This test is for non-prescription home use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing individuals aged 2 years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out infection with influenza, SARS-CoV-2, or other pathogens.

Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, and/or shortness of breath, should seek follow up care from their healthcare provider.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens and therefore do not substitute for a visit to a healthcare provider for appropriate follow-up.

The CareSuperb™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Combo Home Test is a lateral flow immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen, Influenza A nucleoprotein antigen, and Influenza B nucleoprotein antigen from anterior nasal swab specimens.

The CareSuperb™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Combo Home Test utilizes an adaptor-based lateral flow assay platform integrating a conjugate wick filter to facilitate sample processing. Each test cassette contains a nitrocellulose membrane with immobilized capture antibodies for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, Influenza B, and internal control. Following specimen application to the sample port, viral antigens, if present, bind to labeled detection antibodies embedded in the conjugate wick filter. The resulting immune complexes migrate along the test strip and are captured at the respective test lines (C19 for SARS-CoV-2, A for Influenza A, and B for Influenza B), forming visible colored lines. A visible control line (Cont) confirms proper sample migration and test validity. The absence of a control line invalidates the test result.

Each kit includes a single-use test cassette, assay buffer dropper vial, nasal swab, and Quick Reference Instructions (QRI). Test results are visually interpreted 10 minutes after swab removal.

The provided document describes the CareSuperb™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Combo Home Test, an over-the-counter lateral flow immunoassay for lay users. The study aimed to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device and its performance characteristics for qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B antigens in anterior nasal swab samples.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

While specific acceptance criteria (i.e., pre-defined thresholds the device must meet for clearance) are not explicitly stated as numbered points in this 510(k) summary, they can be inferred from the reported performance data and common FDA expectations for such devices. The performance data presented serves as the evidence that the device met these implied criteria.

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

• Clinical Performance Test Set (Human Samples): N=1644 total participants.
  • Self-collecting: N=1447 (individuals aged 14 or older testing themselves)
  • Lay-user/Tester Collection: N=197 (adults testing individuals aged 2-17 years)
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: United States ("13 clinical sites across the U.S.").
  • Retrospective/Prospective: The clinical study was prospective, as samples were collected "between November of 2023 and March of 2025" from "symptomatic subjects, suspected of respiratory infection."
• Analytical Performance Test Sets (Contrived/Spiked Samples): Sample sizes vary per study:
  • Precision Study 1: 360 results per panel member (negative, 1x LoD positive, 3x LoD positive).
  • Precision Study 2: 36 sample replicates/lot (for negative and 0.75x LoD positive samples).
  • LoD Confirmation: 20 replicates per LoD concentration.
  • Co-spike LoD: 20 replicates per panel (multiple panels tested).
  • Inclusivity: 5 replicates per strain (for identifying lowest reactive concentration).
  • Competitive Interference: 3 replicates per of 19 sample configurations.
  • Hook Effect: 5 replicates per concentration.
  • WHO Standard LoD: 20 replicates for confirmation.
  • Cross-Reactivity/Microbial Interference: 3 replicates per microorganism (in absence and presence of analytes).
  • Endogenous/Exogenous Substances Interference: 3 replicates per substance (in absence and presence of analytes).
  • Biotin Interference: 3 replicates per biotin concentration.
  • Real-time Stability: 5 replicates per lot at each time point.
  • Transportation Stability: 5 replicates per sample type per lot for each condition.
• Usability Study: 1,795 participants.
• Readability Study: 50 participants.

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

• Clinical Performance (Reference Method - Test Set Ground Truth): The ground truth for the clinical test set was established using FDA-cleared molecular RT-PCR comparator assays for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B.

  • This implies that the "experts" were the established and validated molecular diagnostic platforms, rather than human expert readers/adjudicators for visual interpretation.

• Usability/Readability Studies:

  • Usability Study: "Observer agreement with user-interpreted results was 98.7%." This suggests trained observers (likely not "experts" in the sense of clinical specialists, but rather study personnel trained in test interpretation as per IFU) established agreement with user results.
  • Readability Study: The study focused on whether lay users themselves could interpret results after reading the QRI. Ground truth for the mock devices would be pre-determined by the device manufacturer based on their design.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Clinical Performance: No human adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) is mentioned for the clinical test set. The direct comparison was made against molecular RT-PCR as the gold standard, which serves as the definitive ground truth for the presence or absence of the viruses. This type of diagnostic test typically relies on a definitive laboratory method for ground truth, not human interpretation consensus.
• Usability/Readability Studies: The usability study mentioned "Observer agreement with user-interpreted results," implying direct comparison between user interpretation and a pre-defined correct interpretation or an observer's interpretation. The readability study involved participants interpreting mock devices based on the QRI, with performance measured against the pre-determined correct interpretation of those mock devices.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

• No AI Component: This device (CareSuperb™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Combo Home Test) is a lateral flow immunoassay for visual interpretation. It is not an AI-powered diagnostic device, nor does it have a human-in-the-loop AI assistance component. Therefore, an MRMC study related to AI assistance was not applicable and not performed.

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

• Not Applicable: As this is a visually interpreted antigen test, there is no "algorithm only" or standalone algorithm performance to evaluate. The device's performance is intrinsically linked to its chemical reactions and subsequent visual interpretation by the user (or observer in studies).

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Performance Test Set: FDA-cleared molecular RT-PCR comparator assays (molecular ground truth). This is generally considered a highly reliable and objective ground truth for viral detection.
• Analytical Performance Test Sets: Generally contrived samples with known concentrations of viral analytes or microorganisms against negative pooled swab matrix. This allows for precise control of the 'ground truth' concentration and presence/absence.
• Usability/Readability Studies: For readability, it was pre-defined correct interpretations of "mock test devices." For usability, it was observation of correct procedural steps and comparison of user interpretation to trained observer interpretation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not explicitly stated in terms of a "training set" for the device itself. As a lateral flow immunoassay, this device is developed through biochemical design, antigen-antibody interactions, and manufacturing processes, rather than through machine learning models that require distinct training datasets.
• The document describes the analytical studies (LoD, inclusivity, interference, etc.) which inform the device's technical specifications and ensure it's robust. The clinical study and usability/readability studies are typically considered validation/test sets for the final manufactured device.
• If this were an AI/ML device, a specific training set size would be crucial. For this type of IVD, the "training" analogous to an AI model would be the research, development, and optimization of the assay components (antibodies, membrane, buffer, etc.) using various known positive and negative samples in the lab.

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

• Not applicable in the context of a machine learning training set.
• For the development and optimization of the assay (analogous to training), ground truth would have been established through:
  • Using quantified viral stocks (e.g., TCID₅₀/mL, CEID₅₀/mL, FFU/mL, IU/mL) to precisely spike into negative matrix (PNSM) to create known positive and negative samples at various concentrations.
  • Employing established laboratory reference methods (e.g., molecular assays) to confirm the presence/absence and concentration of analytes in developmental samples.
  • Utilizing characterized clinical samples (if available) with confirmed statuses from gold-standard methods early in development.

Ask a specific question about this device

WELLlife Flu A&B Home Test:
The WELLlife Flu A&B Home Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A and influenza B nucleoprotein antigens directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. This test is for non-prescription home use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing other individuals aged 2 years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out infection with influenza or other pathogens. Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough and/or shortness of breath, should seek follow-up care from their healthcare provider.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens, and therefore do not substitute for a visit to a healthcare provider or appropriate follow-up.

WELLlife Influenza A&B Test:
The WELLlife Influenza A&B Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A and influenza B nucleoprotein antigens directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. This test is for use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing other individuals aged 2 years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out infection with influenza or other pathogens. Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough and/or shortness of breath, should seek follow-up care from their healthcare providers.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens.

Test results should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions.

The WELLlife Flu A&B Home Test and WELLlife Influenza A&B Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A and influenza B protein antigens. The test has two versions, one for over the counter (OTC) use (WELLlife Flu A&B Home Test) and one for professional use (WELLlife Influenza A&B Test). Both versions of the WELLlife Influenza A&B Test that have an identical general design and are intended for the qualitative detection of protein antigens directly in anterior nasal swab specimens from individuals with respiratory signs and symptoms. Results are for the identification and differentiation of nucleoprotein antigen from influenza A virus, and nucleoprotein antigen from influenza B virus. The test cassette in the test kit is assembled with a test strip in a plastic housing that contains a nitrocellulose membrane with three lines: two test lines (Flu A line, Flu B line) and a control line (C line). The device is for in vitro diagnostic use only.

The provided FDA Clearance Letter for the WELLlife Flu A&B Home Test includes details on the device's performance based on non-clinical and clinical studies. Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for performance are generally implicit in these types of submissions, aiming for high agreement with a comparative method. The reported performance is presented through Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA).

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Implicit Criteria)

Study Details

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• See Table 1 above. The acceptance criteria are inferred from what is typically expected for a diagnostic device of this type seeking FDA clearance (e.g., high sensitivity and specificity, consistent performance).

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Clinical Study: 680 evaluable subjects (from 766 enrolled) were used for clinical performance evaluation.
  • Non-clinical Studies: Sample sizes vary by study:
    • Lot-to-Lot Precision: 180 results per sample type (3 lots x 3 operators x 2 replicates x 2 runs per day x 5 days).
    • Site-to-Site Reproducibility: 135 replicates per sample type (3 sites x 3 operators x 5 days).
    • LoD: 20 replicates for confirmatory testing.
    • Analytical Reactivity: Triplicates for initial range finding, then triplicates for two-fold dilutions.
    • Cross-Reactivity/Microbial Interference: 3 replicates per organism/virus.
    • Endogenous Interfering Substances: 3 replicates per substance.
    • High Dose Hook Effect: 9 replicates (across 3 lots).
    • Competitive Interference: 9 replicates for each combination.
• Data Provenance:
  • Clinical Study: "A prospective study was performed... between January 2025 and March 2025... at six (6) clinical sites." The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the FDA clearance implies US-based or FDA-accepted international clinical trials. It's a prospective study.
  • Non-clinical Studies: Performed internally at one site (Lot-to-Lot Precision) or at three external sites (Site-to-Site Reproducibility). These are also prospective experimental studies.

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)

• The ground truth for the clinical test set was established using an "FDA-cleared molecular comparator method." This is a laboratory-based, highly sensitive, and specific molecular test, which serves as the gold standard for detecting influenza RNA/DNA.
• There is no mention of human experts (e.g., radiologists, pathologists) being used to establish the ground truth for this in vitro diagnostic device. The comparator method itself is the "expert" ground truth.

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

• The document does not describe an adjudication method for conflicting results between the investigational device and the comparator method. Results from the WELLlife Flu A&B Home Test were compared directly to the FDA-cleared molecular comparator method. For an in-vitro diagnostic, typically the molecular comparator is considered the definitive truth.

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

• No MRMC study was performed. This device is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay, a rapid antigen test that produces visible lines interpreted directly by the user (either a lay user at home or a professional user). It does not involve "human readers" interpreting complex images or AI assistance in the interpretation of results in the way an imaging AI device would. Therefore, this question is not applicable to the WELLlife Flu A&B Home Test.

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

• This question is primarily relevant for AI/ML-driven software as a medical device (SaMD) where an algorithm provides an output. The WELLlife Flu A&B Home Test is a rapid diagnostic test interpreted visually. Its performance is inherent to the chemical reactions on the test strip, and it's designed for human interpretation (either self-testing or professional use). Therefore, a "standalone algorithm-only" performance study is not applicable in the context of this device's technology. The "device performance" metrics (PPA, NPA) are effectively its standalone performance as interpreted by a human user following instructions.

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

• The ground truth for the clinical study was an FDA-cleared molecular comparator method (e.g., PCR or equivalent), considered the gold standard for influenza detection.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The provided document describes clinical and non-clinical performance evaluation studies. For IVD devices like this one, it's common that the "training set" is not a distinct, formally defined dataset as it would be for a machine learning model. Instead, the device's design, reagent formulation, and manufacturing processes are optimized and validated through iterative development and verification testing (analogue to "training" and "internal validation"). The studies described in this summary are primarily validation studies demonstrating the final product's performance. Therefore, a specific "training set sample size" as one might see for an AI model is not applicable/not explicitly defined in this context.

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

• As mentioned above, for a rapid diagnostic test, there isn't a "training set" in the sense of a machine learning model. Instead, the development process involves:
  • Analytical Validation: Establishing LoD, reactivity, specificity (cross-reactivity, interference) using reference strains, cultured microorganisms, and purified substances with known concentrations and characteristics. This essentially acts as the "ground truth" during the development phase.
  • Design Iteration: The test components (antibodies, membrane, buffer) are optimized to achieve desired sensitivity and specificity against known influenza strains and potential interferents. This iterative process, using well-characterized samples, ensures the device learns (is developed) to correctly identify targets.
  • The FDA-cleared molecular comparator assays serve as the ultimate "ground truth" against which the device's overall clinical performance is measured.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Nano-Check Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A, and influenza B nucleoprotein antigens and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen directly in anterior nasal swab (ANS) samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. Clinical signs and symptoms of respiratory viral infection due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza can be similar.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with a molecular assay, if necessary, for patient management. Negative results do not rule out infection with influenza or SARS-CoV-2 and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions.

Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.

The Nano-Check™ Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for in vitro rapid, simultaneous qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A, and influenza B nucleoprotein antigens and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen directly from anterior nasal swab specimens.

The assay kit consists of 25 test cassette devices, 25 reagent tubes, 25 ampules containing extraction buffer, 25 anterior nasal specimen collection swabs, one positive control swab, one negative control swab, one Instructions for Use, and one Quick Reference Instruction. An external positive control swab contains noninfectious influenza A, influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 antigens dried onto the swab and an external negative control swab contains noninfectious blank universal viral transport media dried on the swab. The kit should be stored at 2°C - 30°C.

Device Acceptance Criteria and Performance Study: Nano-Check Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test

The Nano-Check Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A, influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 antigens in anterior nasal swab samples. The device's acceptance criteria and performance were established through extensive analytical and clinical studies.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The following table summarizes the key acceptance criteria and the performance achieved by the Nano-Check Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test based on the provided 510(k) summary. Given that this is a qualitative assay, the primary performance metrics are Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) in clinical studies, and various measures of agreement/detection rates in analytical studies.

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

• Clinical Study Test Set Sample Size: A total of 1,969 subjects were enrolled in the clinical study.
• Data Provenance: The data was collected from a multi-center, prospective clinical study in the U.S. between November 2022 and February 2025.

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

The device being reviewed is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test for antigen detection. For such devices, the "ground truth" in clinical performance studies is typically established by a highly sensitive and specific molecular assay (RT-PCR), rather than by human experts interpreting images or signals from the test device itself.

• In this case, the ground truth for the clinical test set was established using an FDA-cleared RT-PCR method as the comparator.
• The document does not specify the number of experts directly involved in establishing the RT-PCR ground truth or their qualifications beyond stating it was performed at a "reference laboratory as per the cleared instruction for use." This implies that qualified laboratory personnel, adhering to standardized RT-PCR protocols, established the ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in studies involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology reads) where discrepancies between readers need to be resolved. Since the Nano-Check Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test is a lateral flow immunoassay interpreted visually by an operator, and the ground truth was established by an RT-PCR molecular assay, no explicit adjudication method for the test set is described or implied in the provided text. The comparison was directly between the device's visual results and the RT-PCR results.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study (MRMC) is generally conducted for imaging AI devices to evaluate the impact of AI assistance on human reader performance. The Nano-Check Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test is an in vitro diagnostic device for antigen detection, not an imaging AI device where human readers interpret complex images. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" is not applicable to this device.

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

Yes, the performance presented for the Nano-Check Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test in the clinical study is essentially standalone performance in the context of a rapid diagnostic test. While the test is visually interpreted by an operator, the performance metrics (PPA and NPA) are derived from the direct output of the device compared to the RT-PCR reference. There is no complex "algorithm" separate from the physical test strips' chemical reaction and visual readout. The operator simply reads the result displayed by the device. The "human-in-the-loop" here is the visual interpretation of a clear positive/negative line, not a complex decision-making process aided by AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The type of ground truth used for the clinical performance study was an FDA-cleared molecular assay (RT-PCR method). This is a highly sensitive and specific laboratory-based test considered the gold standard for detecting viral nucleic acids, making it appropriate for establishing true positive and true negative cases of infection.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The provided document describes the performance data for the test set (clinical study and analytical validation). It does not specify a separate training set sample size. This is expected because the Nano-Check Influenza+COVID-19 Dual Test is a lateral flow immunoassay, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a distinct training phase with a labeled dataset. The development and optimization of such assays rely on biochemical and immunological principles, followed by rigorous analytical and clinical validation.

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

As noted above, there isn't a "training set" in the machine learning sense for this type of IVD device. The development of the assay (e.g., selecting antibodies, optimizing reagents) would involve internal R&D studies, using characterized viral samples and clinical specimens, but these are part of the development process rather than a formal "training set" with ground truth establishment for an AI algorithm. The performance data presented is from the validation against established reference methods.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Flowflex Plus COVID-19 + Flu A/B Home Test is a lateral flow immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B protein antigens directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. Symptoms of respiratory infections due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza can be similar.

This test is for non-prescription home use with self-collected anterior nares nasal swab specimens from individuals aged 14 years or older, or with adult-collected anterior nasal swab specimens from individuals two (2) years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out infection with influenza, SARS-CoV-2 or other pathogens.

Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough and/or shortness of breath should therefore seek follow-up care from their healthcare provider.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens and therefore do not substitute for a visit to a healthcare provider or appropriate follow-up.

The Flowflex Plus COVID-19 + Flu A/B Home Test is a lateral flow immunoassay.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a lateral flow immunoassay (a type of rapid diagnostic test), not an AI/computer-aided detection (CAD) device. Therefore, many of the requested criteria (like ground truth establishment by experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, and training set information) are not directly applicable or would be established differently for an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding acceptance criteria and performance as presented for this type of device.

Key takeaway for this document: This is a clearance for a physical diagnostic test (Flowflex Plus COVID-19 + Flu A/B Home Test), not a software or AI-based medical device. Therefore, the concepts of "ground truth for test set," "adjudication methods," "MRMC studies," "standalone algorithm performance," and "training set details" are not applicable in the typical AI/CAD sense. Instead, the "ground truth" for an IVD device like this is typically established by a gold standard laboratory method (e.g., PCR), and the performance metrics are sensitivity and specificity against that gold standard.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided document and the nature of the device:

Device: Flowflex Plus COVID-19 + Flu A/B Home Test (Lateral flow immunoassay)

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document itself does not contain the specific performance data (sensitivity, specificity) or the exact acceptance criteria that were used for clearance. Instead, it is the clearance letter stating that the device has been reviewed and found substantially equivalent. To find the actual performance data and acceptance criteria, one would typically need to refer to the full 510(k) submission summary or associated clinical study reports, which are not included here.

For a lateral flow immunoassay like this, the acceptance criteria would typically be defined as minimum acceptable sensitivity and specificity values for each analyte (SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, Flu B) compared to a gold standard molecular test (e.g., RT-PCR).

Hypothetical Example Table (based on typical IVD clearance expectations, not from this document):

Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The document implicitly states that such a study was conducted and reviewed by the FDA, leading to the substantial equivalence determination. This would be a clinical performance study comparing the results of the Flowflex Plus test to a gold standard laboratory test (e.g., RT-PCR).

Details not explicitly in the document, but standard for IVD tests:

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in this clearance letter. For a multi-analyte home test, the sample size would likely be in the hundreds to low thousands of patient samples, ensuring sufficient numbers of positive and negative cases for each analyte.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. For home tests, clinical studies typically involve both prospective collection of samples and sometimes the use of banked, de-identified retrospective samples, often from diverse geographical locations to ensure generalizability. It would likely be from symptomatic individuals, mirroring the intended use.

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

• Not applicable in the sense of human image readers for AI. For an in-vitro diagnostic test, the "ground truth" is established by a reference laboratory method, almost always a highly sensitive and specific molecular test (e.g., RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza). The experts involved would be laboratory professionals performing and interpreting these reference tests, following validated protocols.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable in the sense of imaging adjudication. For IVD tests, if there are discrepancies between the investigational device and the reference method, these are typically investigated by retesting, re-sampling, or sequence analysis, rather than human "adjudication" of a readout in the way one would for an imaging study.

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

• No, not applicable. MRMC studies are specific to evaluating the impact of AI/CAD on human reader performance, typically in imaging diagnostics. This device is a direct patient-use diagnostic test.

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

• Not applicable. This isn't an algorithm; it's a physical test. The "standalone performance" is simply the test's sensitivity and specificity when read according to its instructions for use, whether by a lay user or healthcare professional.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Molecular Reference Method (e.g., RT-PCR): This would be the gold standard for confirming the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B in the patient samples.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable in the AI sense. For an IVD like this, there isn't a "training set" for an algorithm. The "training" or development of the immunoassay involves chemical and biological optimization, not machine learning on a dataset. The validation happens through analytical and clinical studies.

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

• Not applicable for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The WELLlife™ COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Home Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza B nucleoprotein antigens and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. Symptoms of respiratory infections due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza can be similar. This test is for nonprescription home use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing individuals aged 2 years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out influenza, SARS-CoV-2, or other pathogens.

Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough and/or shortness of breath, should seek follow-up care from their healthcare provider.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens, and therefore do not subsitiute for a visit to a healthcare provider or appropriate follow-up.

The WELLlife™ COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Antigen Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza B nucleoprotein antigens and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. Symptoms of respiratory infections due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza can be similar. This test is for use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing aged 2 years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out influenza, SARS-CoV-2, or other pathogens.

Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough and or shortness of breath, should seek follow-up care from their healthcare providers.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens.

Test results should not be used as the sole basis for treatment management decisions.

The WELLlife™ COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Home Test and the WELLlife™ COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Antigen Test is a lateral flow immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and influenza B protein antigens. The test has two versions, one for over the counter (OTC) use, the (WELLlife™ COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Home Test), and one for professional use (WELLlife™ COVID-19 / Influenza Antigen A&B). Both versions of the WELLIife™ COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Tests that have an identical general design and are intended for the qualitative detection of nucleocapsid protein antigens directly in anterior nasal swab specimens from individuals with respiratory signs and symptoms within the first four (4) days of symptom onset. Results are for the identification and differentiation of nucleocapsid protein antigen from SARS-CoV-2, nucleoprotein antigen from influenza A virus, and nucleoprotein antigen from influenza B virus. The test cassette in the test kit is assembled with a test strip in a plastic housing that contains a nitrocellulose membrane with four lines: three test lines (Flu A line, Flu B line and CoV line) and a control line (C line). The device is for in vitro diagnostic use only. The device is for over-the-counter use.

The provided document describes the WELLlife COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Home Test and WELLlife COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Antigen Test. The following information is extracted regarding its acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for molecular diagnostic devices like the WELLlife COVID-19 / Influenza A&B Home Test are typically established by the FDA and are generally expressed as minimum acceptable Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) compared to a reference molecular assay (e.g., PCR). While specific numerical acceptance criteria are not explicitly stated in this document (e.g., "PPA must be >X%"), the clinical performance results are presented, and the conclusion states that the device's performance demonstrates substantial equivalence to the predicate device. Therefore, the reported performance is presented against an implicit expectation of high agreement.

Note: The actual FDA acceptance criteria for PPA and NPA can vary based on test type, intended use, and public health context. The values listed under "Acceptance Criteria (Implicit)" represent typical expected ranges for such devices.

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Clinical Performance Study: 787 enrolled subjects, with 705 evaluable subjects.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated, but the submission is from "Wondfo USA Co., Ltd." in San Diego, California, implying the study was likely conducted in the USA.
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Prospective study. Subjects were sequentially enrolled between December 2023 and March 2024, and samples were tested fresh.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The ground truth was established by an "FDA-cleared molecular comparator method," but details on the number or qualifications of experts involved in the molecular comparator testing, or explicit adjudication if necessary, are not mentioned.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not explicitly provided. The document states that a healthcare professional collected a swab for testing using an "FDA-cleared molecular comparator method." The process for resolving discrepancies between the candidate device and the comparator method, or any other adjudication steps, is not detailed.

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 document describes a diagnostic test for detecting viral antigens, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device. Therefore, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study focusing on human reader improvement with or without AI assistance is not applicable and was not performed. The device is a lateral flow immunoassay interpreted visually.

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

The device is a lateral flow immunoassay that produces visible colored lines for interpretation. It is designed for "nonprescription home use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing individuals aged 2 years or older." While it's a "standalone" device in the sense that it doesn't require a separate instrument or a healthcare professional for interpretation at home, it does rely on human visual interpretation (human-in-the-loop). Therefore, a "standalone algorithm only" performance is not applicable as there is no underlying algorithm in this context.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

The ground truth for the clinical performance study was established using an "FDA-cleared molecular comparator method" (e.g., PCR).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This document does not specify a separate "training set" in the context of machine learning. The non-clinical performance studies (Lot-to-Lot Precision, Limit of Detection, Inclusivity, Analytical Specificity) used various contrived and spiked samples. The clinical study used 705 evaluable subjects. For a lateral flow immunoassay, "training" typically refers to the development and optimization process involving chemical formulations, antibody selection, and manufacturing parameters, rather than a distinct data training set for a machine learning algorithm.

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

As noted above, a distinct "training set" in the machine learning sense is not described. For the analytical studies, ground truth (e.g., viral concentration, presence/absence of interferents) was established by spiking samples with known concentrations of viruses or other substances. For the clinical study, the reference standard was the result from an FDA-cleared molecular comparator method.

Ask a specific question about this device

The QuickFinder™ COVID-19Flu Antigen Self Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza B nucleoprotein antigens and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. Symptoms of respiratory infections due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza can be similar. This test is for nonprescription home use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing individuals aged 2 years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out influenza, SARS-CoV-2 or other pathogens. Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough and/or shortness of breath, should seek follow-up care from their healthcare provider.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens and therefore do not subsition for a visit to a healthcare provider or appropriate follow-up.

QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Pro Test

The QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Pro Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza B nucleoprotein antigens and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. Symptoms of respiratory infections due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza can be similar. This test is for use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing individuals aged 2 years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out influenza, SARS-CoV-2 or other pathogens. Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough and/or shortness of breath, should seek follow-up care from their healthcare provider.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens and therefore do not subsition for a visit to a healthcare provider or appropriate follow-up.

The QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Self Test / QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Pro Test is a rapid lateral flow test for the qualitative detection of the SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A and Influenza B using anterior nares nasal swab samples from those who are suspected of COVID-19, Influenza A, and Influenza B. The QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Self Test / QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Pro Test is validated for testing direct samples without transport media.

The lateral flow test is for:

• . Self-collected anterior nasal (nares) swab specimens from individuals aged 14 years and older with symptoms of COVID-19 within the first 4 days of symptom onset.
• Adult-collected anterior nasal (nares) swab specimens from individuals aged 2 years ● and older with symptoms of COVID-19 within the first 4 days of symptom onset.

The QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Self Test / QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Pro Test is a lateral flow test. The cassette contains membranes which are pre-coated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein monoclonal antibodies, anti-influenza A nucleoprotein monoclonal antibodies and anti-influenza B nucleoprotein monoclonal antibodies on the test lines. Another anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein monoclonal antibodies, anti-influenza A nucleoprotein monoclonal antibodies and anti-influenza B nucleoprotein monoclonal antibodies are each bound to the beads. When the sample is put into the sample well, the antibodies bound to the beads and the antigen in the sample bind to form complexes and migrate to the membrane. The complexes will be captured by coated antibodies on the membrane, and then the line will form a visible line. The presence of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and influenza B antigens are indicated by lines visible in the Smarked position, A-marked position, and B-marked position in the results window, respectively. If no colored line appears on the control line (C), it implies that the test has not worked as intended.

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

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Self Test / QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Pro Test

The acceptance criteria for the QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Self Test / QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Pro Test are primarily demonstrated through its clinical performance, comparing its results against a highly sensitive, FDA 510(k) cleared molecular assay. Additional analytical performance studies confirm the device's technical capabilities.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Clinical Performance Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from reported results):
While explicit acceptance criteria are not stated as numerical cutoffs in the document, these are the reported performance values that demonstrate the device's efficacy. From context, the reported PPAs and NPAs are likely what the FDA evaluated for establishing substantial equivalence.

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

Test Set (Clinical Evaluation):

• Sample Size: A total of 788 evaluable subjects were enrolled.
• Data Provenance: The clinical study was conducted at six (6) sites in the United States from October 2023 to June 2024. The study was prospective, with samples collected by lay users from themselves or for a household member. Subjects were symptomatic individuals experiencing symptoms associated with COVID-19 or Influenza, within 4 days of symptom onset.

Test Set (Usability/Human Factors Assessment):

• Sample Size: 50 subjects participated (25 self-collecting and 25 lay-users collecting from another).
• Data Provenance: Conducted as part of the clinical study from October 2023 to November 2023, likely in the United States. Prospective, as subjects performed tasks in a simulated home environment.

Test Set (Lay User Readability Assessment):

• Sample Size: All 50 subjects who participated in the human factors assessment also interpreted mock devices.
• Data Provenance: Same as the Usability Assessment.

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

The ground truth for the clinical test set was established by a highly sensitive molecular FDA 510(k) cleared SARS-CoV-2 assay and highly sensitive molecular FDA 510(k) cleared Influenza A and B assays. The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications within the context of establishing this ground truth (e.g., for interpreting the molecular assay results). The molecular assays themselves serve as the expert-level reference standard, implying specialized laboratory personnel and validated methods.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method for conflicting results between the QuickFinder™ test and the reference molecular assays. The performance metrics (PPA, NPA) are calculated directly from the comparison. For the usability study, "study personnel or a healthcare provider" evaluated the subjects' performance, implying assessment by trained individuals, but a formal adjudication process (like 2+1) isn't detailed for disagreements, as it focuses on task performance rather than a diagnostic outcome.

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

The document does not mention a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study evaluating how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance. This device is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay, a rapid visual test, and does not incorporate AI for result interpretation by human readers. The usability and readability studies assess the lay user's ability to interpret the test results, which is a form of human "reading," but not a comparative effectiveness study with AI assistance.

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

The QuickFinder™ devices are standalone rapid visual tests that require human interpretation of the lines on the cassette. They are explicitly stated to "require no instrumentation or mobile applications." Therefore, the clinical performance data, while comparing to a molecular assay, represents the "standalone" performance of the test as interpreted by lay users (for the Self Test) or users (for the Pro Test) without an additional algorithm for interpretation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The primary ground truth used for evaluating the clinical performance of the QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Self Test / QuickFinder™ COVID-19/Flu Antigen Pro Test was a highly sensitive molecular FDA 510(k) cleared SARS-CoV-2 assay and highly sensitive molecular FDA 510(k) cleared Influenza A and B assays. This is considered the gold standard for detecting the presence of viral RNA/antigens.

For the analytical studies (LoD, Co-spiked LoD, Inclusivity, Interference, Hook Effect), the ground truth was established using known concentrations of specific viral strains (UV inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and live Influenza A and B) spiked into pooled human negative swab matrix (PNSM).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide information on the sample size for a training set. As this device is a rapid antigen test (lateral flow immunoassay) and likely relies on pre-calibrated reagents and visual signal detection rather than a machine-learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the computational sense, such information would not typically be applicable or relevant in the same way it would be for AI/ML-based devices. The development of such assays involves extensive analytical validation using contrived and clinical samples, but these are generally referred to as validation sets rather than machine learning "training sets."

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

As noted above, the concept of a "training set" and its associated ground truth establishment methods (e.g., expert consensus, pathology labels, outcome data) are generally not applicable to a lateral flow immunoassay in the same way they would be for an AI/ML device. The analytical performance studies (LoD, inclusivity, interference) use precisely characterized viral material and reference standards to establish the "truth" for those controlled experiments. For the clinical validation, the ground truth was the results from the FDA-cleared molecular assays.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Healgen Rapid Check COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Test is a lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the qualitative detection and differentiation of influenza A, and influenza B nucleoprotein antigens and SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. Symptoms of respiratory infections due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza can be similar. This test is for non-prescription home use by individuals aged 14 years or older testing themselves, or adults testing individuals aged 2 years or older.

All negative results are presumptive and should be confirmed with an FDA-cleared molecular assay when determined to be appropriate by a healthcare provider. Negative results do not rule out infection with influenza, SARS-CoV-2 or other pathogens. Individuals who test negative and experience continued or worsening respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough and/or shortness of breath, should therefore seek follow-up care from their healthcare provider.

Positive results do not rule out co-infection with other respiratory pathogens and therefore do not substitute for a visit to a healthcare provider or appropriate follow-up.

The Healgen Rapid Check COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Test is an immunochromatographic assay that uses highly sensitive monoclonal antibodies to detect nucleoprotein antigens from SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus types A and B in anterior nasal swab (ANS) samples from symptomatic individuals. The test device is composed of a plastic housing, known as a cassette that contains a test strip with the following parts: sample pad, reaction membrane, and absorbing pad. The reagent pad contains colloidal gold conjugated with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) specific to SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B target proteins. The reaction membrane contains different analyte specific antibodies to capture the target proteingold-mAb complexes at the respective test lines. Excess liquid and reagents are absorbed by the absorbing pad. The Healgen Rapid Check COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Test does not use biotin-Streptavidin/avidin chemistry in any of the steps for coupling reagents.

The Healgen Rapid Check COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Test is a qualitative lateral flow immunochromatographic assay intended for the detection and differentiation of influenza A, influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 antigens directly in anterior nasal swab samples from individuals with signs and symptoms of respiratory tract infection. The device is for non-prescription home use.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The acceptance criteria for clinical performance are based on Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) compared to a highly sensitive RT-PCR test. For usability, acceptance criteria are based on the accurate performance of critical and non-critical tasks during self-testing, and accurate interpretation of results.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance for Test Set:

• Clinical Study (Test Set):
  • SARS-CoV-2: 1,097 evaluable subjects.
  • Flu A/B: 1,122 evaluable subjects.
  • Data Provenance: Multi-center, prospective clinical study conducted at ten clinical sites across the U.S. from February to April 2024. This is prospective, real-world data from symptomatic individuals.
• Usability Assessment (Test Set):
  • 51 subjects (26 self-collecting and testing; 25 lay users collecting and testing from another subject).
• Lay User Readability Assessment (Test Set):
  • All 51 subjects from the usability assessment participated. This involved interpreting a panel of 16 mock investigational tests.

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

• Clinical Study: The ground truth for the clinical study was established using "highly sensitive RT-PCR tests separately detecting SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B." The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts involved in running or interpreting these RT-PCR tests. However, RT-PCR is generally considered the gold standard and is performed by trained laboratory professionals.
• Usability/Readability Studies: For the usability and readability assessments, the "ground truth" for task performance and mock test interpretation was determined by the study design (i.e., what constituted a correct task or interpretation). The document does not mention external experts establishing ground truth for these aspects, as it primarily assesses user interaction and comprehension.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• The document does not explicitly state an adjudication method for the clinical study's comparator (RT-PCR) results or for discrepancies between the candidate device and comparator. Given the direct comparison to RT-PCR as the ground truth, it implies the RT-PCR results were considered definitive for the clinical performance assessment.
• For the usability and readability studies, the "correctness" of tasks and interpretations was likely pre-defined and assessed by study staff based on the device's instructions, rather than requiring expert adjudication.

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

• A MRMC comparative effectiveness study, comparing human readers with and without AI assistance, was not done. This device is a visually interpreted lateral flow immunoassay, and the AI component is not explicitly mentioned as directly linked to interpretation for human readers in a comparative effectiveness study setting. The study evaluated lay user performance in interpreting the test results directly.

6. Standalone Performance Study:

• Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The entire document describes the standalone performance of the Healgen Rapid Check COVID-19/Flu A&B Antigen Test. This includes:
  • Analytical Performance: Precision, Cross-reactivity, Microbial Interference, Competitive Interference, Exogenous and Endogenous Interference, Limit of Detection (LoD), Co-spiked LoD, WHO International Standard comparison, High-dose Hook Effect, Inclusivity.
  • Clinical Performance: Comparison of the device results against RT-PCR (considered the ground truth) for SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and Flu B.
  • Usability and Readability Assessment: Evaluation of lay users' ability to correctly perform the test and interpret results without external sophisticated aid.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Clinical Study: Highly sensitive RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A, and Influenza B. This is a molecular diagnostic method generally considered the gold standard for viral detection.
• Analytical Studies: For analytical performance studies (e.g., LoD, cross-reactivity), the ground truth was established by known concentrations of purified viral analytes or specific microorganisms.
• Usability/Readability Studies: The ground truth for these studies was the pre-defined correct procedure or interpretation according to the device's Instructions For Use (IFU) and Quick Reference Instructions (QRI).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of a machine learning algorithm for the device itself.
• For the analytical performance studies (e.g., LoD, interference), various replicates (e.g., 3 replicates for preliminary LoD, 20-60 replicates for confirmatory LoD, 3 replicates for interference studies) were used to characterize the device's performance across different conditions. These could be considered analogous to data used to "train" or optimize the analytical aspects of the assay development, but not in the context of a machine learning training set.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established:

• Not applicable in the context of a machine learning training set, as the device is a lateral flow immunoassay interpreted visually by humans.
• For the analytical characterization, the ground truth was established by precisely preparing samples with known concentrations of viral analytes or interfering substances at specified dilutions, often using quantitative methods (e.g., TCID50/mL, PFU/mL, CFU/mL).

Ask a specific question about this device