Search Results

The K-ASSAY® RF (Ver.2) assay is for the quantitative determination of human IgG rheumatoid factor antibodies in patient serum or plasma (citric acid, EDTA, or lithium heparin) based on immunoturbidimetric assay. The presence of IgG RF antibodies, in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests, is an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatord arthritis (RA). FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.

The K-ASSAY® RF Calibrator (Ver.2) is intended to be used to calibrate the K-ASSAY® RF (Ver.2) immunoturbidimetric assay. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA for a medical device called "K-ASSAY® RF (Ver.2), K-ASSAY® RF Calibrator (Ver.2)". This device is an in-vitro diagnostic test for quantitative determination of human IgG rheumatoid factor antibodies.

The letter explicitly states that the device is a "Rheumatoid Factor Immunological Test System" (Regulation Name: 21 CFR 866.5775) and is a "Class II" device.

Crucially, this document is an FDA clearance letter for a laboratory test (an in-vitro diagnostic device), not an AI/ML-based medical device that would have acceptance criteria based on performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, or involve human readers and their improvement with AI assistance.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design for AI/ML, human readers, ground truth establishment, etc., is not applicable to this type of device and will not be found in this document.

The "acceptance criteria" for this type of device typically revolve around demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, and performance measures like precision, accuracy, linearity, measuring range, interference, and agreement studies for clinical performance. These are standard validation tests for IVD products, not AI performance metrics.

In summary, based on the provided text, I cannot provide the requested information because it pertains to an AI/ML medical device, which the K-ASSAY® RF (Ver.2) is not.

I can, however, extract the following relevant information from the document as it pertains to a medical device:

1. Device Name: K-ASSAY® RF (Ver.2), K-ASSAY® RF Calibrator (Ver.2)
2. Regulation Number: 21 CFR 866.5775
3. Regulation Name: Rheumatoid Factor Immunological Test System
4. Regulatory Class: Class II
5. Indications for Use: The K-ASSAY® RF (Ver.2) assay is for the quantitative determination of human IgG rheumatoid factor antibodies in patient serum or plasma (citric acid, EDTA, or lithium heparin) based on immunoturbidimetric assay. The presence of IgG RF antibodies, in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests, is an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE. The K-ASSAY® RF Calibrator (Ver.2) is intended to be used to calibrate the K-ASSAY® RF (Ver.2) immunoturbidimetric assay. FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTIC USE.
6. Type of Use: Prescription Use
7. Predicate Device: The letter states the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, but the specific predicate device is not named in this letter.

To reiterate, the questions about acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, experts, ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training sets are not applicable to this medical device submission as described in the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

Yumizen C1200 Ferritin reagent is intended for the quantitative in vitro diagnostic determination of Ferritin in human serum by latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay. Measurements of ferritin aid in the diagnosis of diseases affecting iron metabolism, hemochromatosis (iron overload) and iron deficiency anemia.

Yumizen C1200 Transferrin reagent is intended for the quantitative in vitro diagnostic determination of transferrin in human serum and lithium heparin plasma by turbidimetry.

Measurement of transferrin levels ads in the diagnosis of malnutrition, acute inflammation, infection, and iron deficiency anemia.

Yumizen C1200 Rheumatoid Factor reagent is intended for the quantitative in vitro diagnostic determination of rheumatoid factor in human serum by latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay. Measurement of rheumatoid factor may aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

Not Found

The document describes the analytical performance characteristics of three devices: Yumizen C1200 Ferritin, Yumizen C1200 Transferrin, and Yumizen C1200 Rheumatoid Factor. Each device is intended for the quantitative in vitro diagnostic determination of specific substances in human serum, and sometimes plasma, using immunoturbidimetric or turbidimetric assays.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details for each device:

Yumizen C1200 Ferritin

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance (for test set)

• Measuring Range, Precision, Interferences, Prozone/Antigen Excess: Not explicitly stated as "test set" in the context of supervised learning, but these are analytical performance studies. Samples used for precision studies include 240 replicates for analyzer variability and 90 replicates for lot-to-lot variability (for each sample/control). The samples are clinical samples or controls, but the origin (country, retrospective/prospective) is not specified beyond "human serum specimens".
• Method Comparison: 103 native sera samples. Origin: "Anonymous remnants of human serum specimens collected from blood bank." Retrospective.
• Reference Range: Women: 50 "normal samples". Men: 95 "normal samples". Origin: "blood bank." Retrospective.

3. Number of experts and qualifications (for ground truth)

• Not applicable as this is an in vitro diagnostic device for quantitative measurement, not an AI evaluation requiring expert adjudication. Ground truth is instrument-derived or defined by reference methods/literature.

4. Adjudication method (for test set)

• Not applicable.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study

• No, not applicable for this type of IVD device.

6. Standalone performance (algorithm only)

• Yes, the performance data presented is for the device operating in standalone mode (algorithm only) as a quantitative measurement system.

7. Type of ground truth used

• Analytical Performance (LOD, LOQ, Linearity, Precision, Interferences, Prozone/Antigen Excess): The "ground truth" is established through well-defined laboratory analytical methods and standards (CLSI guidelines EP17-A2, EP06-A, EP05-A3, EP07-A2). It relies on the accuracy of the reference materials and methods used in these studies.
• Method Comparison: Comparison against a legally marketed predicate device (Beckman Coulter Ferritin (OSR61203) [K092505]) is used as the reference, with correlation analysis.
• Reference Range: Verification against established literature references (e.g., TIETZ Textbook of Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics).

8. Sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning model that requires a "training set" in that sense. The device's calibration curve establishment and internal parameters would be set by the manufacturer using validated reference materials and methodologies.

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

• Not applicable.

Yumizen C1200 Transferrin

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance (for test set)

• Measuring Range, Precision, Interferences, Prozone/Antigen Excess: Not explicitly stated as "test set" in the context of supervised learning, but these are analytical performance studies. Samples used for precision studies include 240 replicates for analyzer variability and 90 replicates for lot-to-lot variability (for each sample/control). The samples are clinical samples or controls, but the origin (country, retrospective/prospective) is not specified beyond "human serum/plasma".
• Method Comparison: 115 native samples. Origin: "Anonymous remnants of human serum specimens collected from CHU Nîmes (University Hospital Center)." Retrospective.
• Anticoagulant Study: 59 paired serum/plasma samples. Origin: "single donors." Not specified if retrospective or prospective.
• Reference Range: 85 "normal samples" (28 women + 57 men). Origin: "blood bank." Retrospective.

3. Number of experts and qualifications (for ground truth)

• Not applicable.

4. Adjudication method (for test set)

• Not applicable.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study

• No, not applicable.

6. Standalone performance (algorithm only)

• Yes, the performance data presented is for the device operating in standalone mode (algorithm only).

7. Type of ground truth used

• Analytical Performance: Established through CLSI guidelines (EP17-A2, EP06-A, EP05-A3, EP07-A2).
• Method Comparison: Comparison against a legally marketed predicate device (Roche Diagnostics Transferrin Model :TRSF2 [K012393]).
• Reference Range: Verification against established literature references (e.g., Dati et al., Eur. J Clin Chem. Cli Biochem. 1996).

8. Sample size for the training set

• Not applicable.

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

• Not applicable.

Yumizen C1200 Rheumatoid Factor

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance (for test set)

• Measuring Range, Precision, Interferences, Prozone/Antigen Excess: Not explicitly stated as "test set" in the context of supervised learning, but these are analytical performance studies. Samples used for precision studies include 240 replicates for analyzer variability and 90 replicates for lot-to-lot variability (for each sample/control). The samples are clinical samples or controls, but the origin (country, retrospective/prospective) is not specified beyond "human serum".
• Method Comparison: 113 native samples. Origin: "Anonymous remnants of human serum specimens collected from blood bank." Retrospective.
• Reference Range: 60 "normal samples". Origin: "blood bank." Retrospective.

3. Number of experts and qualifications (for ground truth)

• Not applicable.

4. Adjudication method (for test set)

• Not applicable.

5. Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study

• No, not applicable.

6. Standalone performance (algorithm only)

• Yes, the performance data presented is for the device operating in standalone mode (algorithm only).

7. Type of ground truth used

• Analytical Performance: Established through CLSI guidelines (EP17-A2, EP06-A, EP05-A3, EP07-A2).
• Method Comparison: Comparison against a legally marketed predicate device (Olympus RF Latex reagent (OSR61105) [K060201]).
• Reference Range: Verification against established literature references (e.g., Tietz NW, Clinical Guide to Laboratory Tests, 3rd ed. 1990).

8. Sample size for the training set

• Not applicable.

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

• Not applicable.

General Notes on the Studies:

• The studies were designed to evaluate the analytical performance of the IVD reagents and the Yumizen C1200 analyzer according to recognized CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) guidelines, which are standard for in vitro diagnostic device validation.
• The term "acceptance criteria" is often implied by the CLSI guidelines themselves and the high correlation/precision values that are typical for these types of assays to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. Explicit numerical acceptance criteria are sometimes only stated for the precision studies (e.g., %CV limits).
• For the method comparison studies, the high correlation coefficients (r²) indicate good agreement with the predicate devices, supporting the claim of substantial equivalence.
• The "test set" concept from AI/ML is not directly applicable here. The samples used for performance evaluation are analytical samples, control materials, and patient samples that cover the measuring range and demonstrate various performance characteristics of the assay.

Ask a specific question about this device

QUANTA Flash RF IgM is a chemiluminescent immunoassay for the quantitative determination of IgM rheumatoid factor (RF) antibodies in human serum. The presence of IgM RF antibodies, in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests, is an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

QUANTA Flash RF IgA is a chemiluminescent immunoassay for the semi-quantitative determination of lgA rheumatoid factor (RF) antibodies in human serum. The presence of IgA RF antibodies, in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests, is an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

The principle of the assays is chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay, a variation of solid phase immunoassay. The QUANTA Flash® RF IgM and QUANTA Flash® RF IgA assays are designed to run on the BIO-FLASH® instrument. This platform is a fully automated closed system with continuous load and random access capabilities that automatically processes the samples, runs the assay and reports the results. It includes liquid handling hardware, luminometer and computer with software-user interface. The QUANTA Flash® RF IgM and QUANTA Flash® RF IgA assays utilize a reagent cartridge format, which is compatible with the BIO-FLASH® instrument.

Rabbit polyclonal antibodies are coated onto paramagnetic beads, which are stored in the reagent cartridge under conditions that preserve the antibody in its reactive state. When the assay cartridge is ready to be used for the first time, the entire cartridge is inverted several times to thoroughly mix the reagents. The reagent cartridge is then loaded onto the BIO-FLASH instrument.

A patient serum sample is diluted 1:22.7 by the instrument using system rinse in a disposable plastic cuvette. An aliquot of the diluted patient serum, coupled beads, and assay buffer are combined into a second cuvette, and mixed. This cuvette is incubated at 37°C. The beads are then magnetized and washed several times. Isoluminol conjugated anti-human IgM (QUANTA Flash® RF IgM) or anti-human lgA (QUANTA Flash® RF IgA) antibody is then added to the cuvette, and incubated at 37°C. Again, the beads are magnetized and washed repeatedly. The isoluminol conjugate produces a luminescent reaction when "Trigger" reagents are added to the light produced from this reaction is measured as Relative Light Units (RLU) by the BIO-FLASH optical system. RLU values are proportional to the amount of bound isoluminol conjugate, which in turn is proportional to the amount of RF antibodies bound to the antibodies on the beads.

The QUANTA Flash RF IgM and QUANTA Flash RF IgA assays utilize a predefined lot specific Master Curve that is uploaded into the instrument through the reagent cartridge barcode. Based on the results obtained by running the Calibrators, an instrument specific Working Curve is created, which is used by the software to calculate international units per milliliter (IU/mL) (QUANTA Flash® RF IgM) or chemiluminescent units (CU) (QUANTA Flash® RF IgA) from the RLU value obtained for each sample.

QUANTA Flash RF IgM Calibrators, QUANTA Flash RF IgM Controls, QUANTA Flash RF IgA Calibrators and QUANTA Flash RF IgA Controls are sold separately.

The QUANTA Flash® RF IgM Reagents / QUANTA Flash® RF IgA Reagents kit contains the following materials:

One (1) QUANTA Flash RF IgM / RF IgA Reagent Cartridge

QUANTA Flash RF IgM Reagent Cartridge contains the following reagents for 100 determinations:

• a. Rabbit pAb coated paramagnetic beads.
• b. Assay buffer - colored pink, containing protein stabilizers and preservatives.
• Tracer IgM Isoluminol labeled anti-human IgM antibody, containing buffer, protein C. stabilizers and preservative.

QUANTA Flash RF IgA Reagent Cartridge contains the following reagents for 100 determinations:

• a. Rabbit pAb coated paramagnetic beads.
• b. Assay buffer - colored pink, containing protein stabilizers and preservatives.
• Tracer IgA Isoluminol labeled anti-human IgA antibody, containing buffer, protein C. stabilizers and preservative.

The document describes the analytical and clinical performance characteristics of the QUANTA Flash® RF IgM and QUANTA Flash® RF IgA Reagents, which are chemiluminescent immunoassays for the quantitative or semi-quantitative determination of rheumatoid factor (RF) antibodies in human serum. These assays are intended to aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since this document describes two assays (RF IgM and RF IgA), the acceptance criteria and performance are presented for each. The acceptance criteria for analytical performance studies are generally stated in the document (e.g., %CV < 12% for precision), while clinical performance acceptance is implied by the reported sensitivity and specificity, demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device.

QUANTA Flash® RF IgM Reagents

QUANTA Flash® RF IgA Reagents

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

• Test Set (Clinical Validation Study): A total of 706 characterized samples were used.
  • Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. However, given it's an FDA 510(k) submission, it's generally understood that the studies conform to regulatory requirements for market clearance in the US.
  • Retrospective/Prospective: The document does not explicitly state whether the samples were collected retrospectively or prospectively. It mentions a "cohort of characterized samples, none of which were used for establishing the reference range," suggesting they were pre-existing and evaluated in a retrospective manner.

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 document describes a "cohort of characterized samples" but does not detail how the characterization (diagnosis of RA vs. control conditions) was established, nor does it mention the number or qualifications of experts involved in this process. This study is not an MRMC study or an AI-based diagnostic study requiring expert ground truth for image interpretation. Instead, it's about the performance of an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) assay where the "ground truth" for clinical performance is the clinical diagnosis of the patient.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This concept is not applicable to this type of study. Since the device is an IVD assay measuring biomarkers, there is no "adjudication" in the sense of comparing human reads with an AI output or resolving discrepancies among readers. The assay itself provides a quantitative or semi-quantitative result. The "ground truth" for clinical sensitivity and specificity is the medical diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis based on various clinical findings and laboratory tests.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document describes an in-vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human "readers" or image interpretation. Therefore, this type of study is not relevant to the described device.

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

• Yes, the primary study described is a standalone performance study of the assay. The QUANTA Flash® RF IgM and IgA assays provide a quantitative or semi-quantitative result directly from the sample. Their performance in terms of precision, linearity, interference, stability, and clinical sensitivity/specificity is evaluated as the standalone performance of the assay itself, without a human "interpretation" component that would be integrated into the device's output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Clinical Diagnosis: For the clinical performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity), the ground truth was the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for patient samples and the characterization of control patient groups with other conditions or as apparently healthy donors. This "characterization" implies a pre-existing medical diagnosis, likely based on a combination of clinical findings, medical history, and other standard laboratory tests.
• Reference Values/Spiked Samples: For analytical performance characteristics (e.g., linearity, LoQ, interference), the ground truth involved reference standards, known concentrations, or spiked samples where the target analyte amount was precisely known.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• This document describes the regulatory submission for an IVD reagent kit. The concept of a "training set" is more relevant to machine learning algorithms. For IVD development, the samples used to establish initial parameters like the Master Curve for calibration are distinct from a "training set" in an AI context.
  • Reference Range/Cutoff Establishment:
    • Reference population: 191 subjects (117 apparently healthy donors, plus various infectious disease and autoimmune cohorts).
    • RA patient specimens: 42 diagnosed RA patient specimens.
  • Standards for Master Curve: The Master Curve for each assay (IgM and IgA) consists of 6 different Standards. The document implies these standards are pre-defined and used during manufacturing to create the lot-specific Master Curve. The specific number of runs or samples used to define these initial standards is not detailed, but they are manufactured as high-quality reference materials.

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

• As noted above, "training set" doesn't directly apply in the AI sense. However, for the samples used to establish the reference range and cutoff values:
  • The reference population (191 subjects) was classified based on their underlying health status (e.g., "apparently healthy donors," "Infectious Disease Controls," "Rheumatoid Arthritis"). This classification represents the ground truth for establishing the assay's normal range and discriminating cutoff.
  • The cutoff values were established in accordance with CLSI EP28-A3c: Defining, Establishing, and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Clinical Laboratory; Approved Guideline - Third Edition.
  • The non-parametric percentile method was used due to the non-normal distribution of results.
  • For QUANTA Flash RF IgM, the cutoff of 5 IU/mL was set based on the distribution of results in the reference population and the (known) positive RA samples to ensure optimal differentiation.
  • For QUANTA Flash RF IgA, the cutoff was established at 6,000 RLU (assigned 20 CU), which was greater than the 95th percentile of control results (3,767 RLU).

Ask a specific question about this device

EliA RF IgM is intended for the in vitro quantitative measurement of IgM class rheumatoid factor antibodies in human serum and plasma (Li-heparin, EDTA) to aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. EliA RF IgM uses the EliA IgM method on the instrument Phadia 2500/5000.

The method-specific reagents are identical with K102673, but are filled in containers specific for the Phadia 2500/5000 instrument. Each device consists of: Test Wells: EliA RF IqM Wells are coated with aggregated rabbit IgG 4 carriers (12 wells each), ready to use; EliA Sample Diluent: EliA Sample Diluent: PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide - 6 bottles, 48 mL each, ready to use; or 6 bottles, 400 mL each, ready to use; EliA IgM Method Reagents: EliA IgM Conjugate 50 or 200: ß-Galactosidase labeled anti-IgM (mouse monoclonal antibodies) in PBS containing BSA and 0.06% (w/v) sodium azide - 6 wedge shaped bottles, 5 mL each, ready to use; or 6 wedge shaped bottles, 19 mL each, ready to use - -EliA IgM Calibrator Strips: Human IgM (0, 10, 35, 80, 500, 1000 µg/L) in PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide - 5 strips, 6 singleuse vials per strip, 0.3 mL each, ready to use; - EliA IgM Curve Control Strips: Human IgM (80 µg/L) in PBS containing BSA, detergent and 0.095% (w/v) sodium azide – 5 strips, 6 single-use vials per strip, 0.3 mL each, ready to use; - EliA IgM Calibrator Well: Coated with mouse monoclonal antibodies 4 carriers (12 wells each), ready to use. The Phadia EliA Immunodiagnostic System is an automated system for immunodiagnostic testing. The EliA reagents are available as modular packages, each purchased separately. All packages are required to carry out an EliA RF IgM test.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the EliA RF IgM Immunoassay on the Phadia 2500/5000 instruments, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core of this submission is to demonstrate that the EliA RF IgM Immunoassay, previously cleared on the Phadia 250 instrument (K102673), performs substantially equivalently when used on the new Phadia 2500/5000 instrument platform. Therefore, the acceptance criteria are primarily focused on method comparison and analytical performance to show this equivalence. No explicit "acceptance criteria" are provided as a single table within this document for each performance characteristic, but they are implied by the statistical analyses and cut-offs used.

Here's an organized table presenting the relevant acceptance criteria (implied or stated) and the reported device performance:

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Precision Test Set Sample Size: Five samples (at various concentrations: 1.6, 3.9, 7.0, 73.7, 169.6 IU/mL). Each sample tested in four replicates/run, over 21 runs (3 instruments x 7 runs), totaling 84 replicates per sample.
• Linearity Test Set Sample Size: Four patient serum samples.
• Detection Limit (LoD/LoB) Test Set Sample Size: One blank sample (measured in 33 replicates in each of two runs) and three low-level samples (measured in 11 replicates in each of two runs). Total 66 blank determinations and 66 low-level determinations for LoD. 66 determinations for LoQ.
• Method Comparison Test Set Sample Size: More than 100 samples (with ≥20% of the samples within ±25% of the medical decision point).
• Expected Values/Reference Range Test Set Sample Size: n = 400 apparently healthy subjects.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated for specific sample origins (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The reference range study mentions "sera from a Caucasian population obtained from a blood bank," which implies a prospective collection for that specific study, but the overall patient samples used in other analytical studies are not detailed.

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

• Not Applicable: This submission is for an immunoassay, which detects specific antibodies in patient samples. The "ground truth" for such devices is established by the assay's ability to accurately measure the analyte (IgM class rheumatoid factor antibodies) and correlate with clinical diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, as per established medical criteria for the disease itself, not by expert consensus on image interpretation or similar qualitative assessments. For method comparison studies, the "ground truth" is essentially the result obtained by the predicate device (EliA RF IgM on Phadia 250).

4. Adjudication Method (for Test Set)

• Not Applicable: Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1) are typically used for qualitative assessments, such as image interpretation, where multiple experts provide independent reads that may then be reconciled. This device is a quantitative immunoassay.

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

• No: An MRMC study is not relevant for this type of in vitro diagnostic device (immunoassay). MRMC studies are used to assess the comparative effectiveness of different diagnostic methods (e.g., AI-assisted vs. unassisted human readers) using multiple readers and multiple cases, typically for image-based diagnostics.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

• Yes, implicitly: The entire submission describes the standalone performance of the device (EliA RF IgM Immunoassay on the Phadia 2500/5000 instrument) in terms of its analytical characteristics (precision, linearity, detection limits, method comparison to the predicate). There is no "human-in-the-loop" for this automated immunoassay; the result is generated by the instrument and its associated software based on the specimen's reaction.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Analytical Performance:
  • Predicate Device Results: For method comparison, the results obtained from the predicate device (EliA RF IgM on Phadia 250) served as the comparative "ground truth" against which the new instrument's results were evaluated for substantial equivalence.
  • Expected Values/Spiked Samples/Known Standards: For studies like linearity and precision, the "ground truth" is based on samples with known or expected concentrations, or samples created through controlled dilutions.
• For Clinical Relevance: While the direct analytical studies here used the predicate as a reference, the original clinical performance values for the EliA RF IgM immunoassay were "reviewed in K102673," which would have established its "aid in diagnosis" claim against clinical findings of rheumatoid arthritis.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable in the traditional sense: This device is an immunoassay, not an AI/ML algorithm that undergoes a distinct "training phase" on a dataset in the way an imaging algorithm would. The development of an immunoassay involves optimization of reagents and protocols, which is a different process than "training" an algorithm. The 510(k) process focuses on demonstrating analytical and clinical performance for regulatory clearance.

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

• Not Applicable: As explained above, there is no traditional "training set" or "ground truth for a training set" as it would apply to an AI/ML device. The "ground truth" related to the assay's development (optimization, reagent formulation, etc.) would stem from biochemical principles, manufacturing specifications, and initial performance evaluations to ensure the assay functions as intended before formal validation studies.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Optilite Rheumatoid Factor (RF) Kit is intended for the quantitative in vitro measurement of rheumatoid factor in serum using the Binding Site Optilite analyser. Measurement of rheumatoid factor may aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. This test should be used in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

The Optilite Rheumatoid Factor Kit comprises the following reagents: Reaction Buffer, Latex Reagent, RF Controls (supplied at 2 levels, Low and High), and RF Calibrator.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, structured according to your requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance

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

• Precision/Reproducibility: 5 sample preparations, each tested 84 times (2 runs/day, 2 duplicates/run, over 21 days).
• Linearity/Assay Range: A dilution series comprising a high pool and a low pool, tested in 3 replicates.
• Method Comparison with Predicate Device: 103 samples tested.
• Analytical Sensitivity (LoD/LoB/LoQ):
  • LoB: 60 determinations of a blank sample.
  • LoD: 6 determinations of 4 samples near the lower limit of the reportable range.
• Analytical Specificity: Not explicitly stated, but samples were spiked with interfering substances.

Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the samples or whether they were retrospective or prospective. Given the manufacturer is based in the UK and it's a medical device submission, it's plausible the data collection occurred within a regulatory-compliant framework, potentially from a clinical laboratory setting.

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

There is no mention of experts being used to establish ground truth in the context of the analytical performance studies (precision, linearity, specificity, method comparison). This device is an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) for quantitative measurement of Rheumatoid Factor, and its performance is assessed through analytical validation against an established reference standard (WHO 64/2) and comparison with a predicate device. Ground truth, in this context, refers to the known concentration or behavior of the analyte, verified through laboratory methods rather than expert clinical consensus.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The studies described are analytical performance validations, which do not involve subjective interpretation or adjudication by experts. The results are quantitative measurements against defined criteria and methods.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable. This device is a fully automated in vitro diagnostic (IVD) kit for measuring a biomarker; it does not involve human "readers" or Artificial Intelligence (AI) in its measurement process. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is irrelevant to this device.

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

Yes, the studies detailed in "1. Analytical performance" and "2. Comparison studies" demonstrate the standalone performance of the Optilite® Rheumatoid Factor Kit without human intervention in the measurement process after the sample is introduced to the analyzer. The device performs the quantitative analysis automatically.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The primary ground truth for the quantitative measurement performed by this device is:

• International Reference Preparation: The calibration of the assay is traceable to the International Reference Preparation of Rheumatoid Arthritis Serum WHO 64/2. This standard serves as the "ground truth" for the quantitative accuracy of Rheumatoid Factor levels.
• Predicate Device/Established Methods: For method comparison, an alternative commercially available assay (presumably a legally marketed and validated method) served as a comparative ground truth.

For analytical performance studies (precision, linearity, specificity), the ground truth is either:

• Known concentrations: Samples with known or spiked concentrations of analytes or interferents.
• Blank samples: Samples known to contain no analyte (for Limit of Blank).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is an immunoassay kit, not an AI/machine learning algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of developing the device. The reagents and assay parameters are developed based on biochemical principles and optimized through laboratory testing, not machine learning.

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

Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Rheumatoid Factor (RF) Kit for use on SPAPLUS is intended for the quantitative in vitro measurement of rheumatoid factors in serum using the Binding Site SPAPLUS analyser. Measurement of rheumatoid factor may aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. This test should be used in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification decision letter from the FDA for a medical device. It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or specific study details that would allow me to populate the requested table and answer the detailed questions about device performance and study design.

The document primarily states that the device, "Rheumatoid Factor (RF) Kit For Use On SPAPLUS®," is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. It also outlines regulatory requirements and provides contact information for further inquiries.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ADVIA Centaur® anti-CCP IgG (aCCP) assay is for in vitro diagnostic use in the semi-quantitative determination of the IgG class of autoantibodies specific to cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) in human serum or plasma (K2-EDTA and lithium heparin) using the ADVIA Centaur XP system. Detection of anti-CCP antibodies is used as an aid in the diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and should be used in conjunction with other clinical information. Autoantibody levels represent one parameter in a multi-criteria diagnostic process, encompassing both clinical and laboratory-based assessments.

Quality Control:
The ADVIA Centaur® Anti-CCP IgG (aCCP) quality control material is for in vitro diagnostic use to monitor the precision and accuracy of the ADVIA Centaur aCCP assay using the ADVIA Centaur systems.

Master Curve Material (MCM):
The ADVIA Centaur® Anti-CCP IgG (aCCP) Master Curve Material (MCM) is for in vitro diagnostic use in the verification of calibration and reportable range of the ADVIA Centaur aCCP assay.

The ADVIA Centaur aCCP assay is a fully automated, two-step immunoassay using chemiluminescent technology. The assay utilizes an acridinium ester-labeled anti-human lgG as the Lite Reagent. The Solid Phase consists of biotinylated CCP coupled to streptavidin which is then coated onto magnetic latex microparticles.

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

Device Name: ADVIA Centaur® Anti-CCP IgG (aCCP) Assay

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a separate, quantitative table derived from a pre-defined standard (like a predicate device's performance). Instead, it compares the performance of the new device (ADVIA Centaur aCCP assay) to a predicate device (ARCHITECT Anti-CCP Assay) for several characteristics and implies that similar performance constitutes meeting the criteria for substantial equivalence. I will reconstruct a table showing the implied acceptance criteria (based on the predicate's performance or general expectations for such an assay) and the reported performance.

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance:

• Test Set (Clinical Performance):
  • Method Comparison Study: 253 samples (143 confirmed positive for RA, and 110 samples where other auto-antibodies may be present). Data provenance not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective), but it is a clinical study.
  • Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study: 767 patient samples.
    • 307 confirmed-positive RA subjects.
    • 460 non-RA subjects with potentially cross-reacting conditions (22 subgroups).
    • Data provenance not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Training Set: Not explicitly mentioned for this type of in vitro diagnostic assay. Immunoassays are generally calibrated and validated, not "trained" in the machine learning sense. The "training" in this context would likely refer to the development and optimization of the assay reagents and parameters.

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

• For RA Confirmation: "307 confirmed-positive RA subjects that were classified according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria." This implies expert clinical diagnosis based on established criteria, but the specific number and qualifications of individuals making these diagnoses are not provided.
• For Non-RA Subjects: "22 subgroups of non-RA subjects (n=460) with potentially cross-reacting conditions." This also implies clinical diagnosis by experts, but details are not provided.
• For Autoantibody Presence (Method Comparison): "110 samples where other auto-antibodies may be present." This suggests expert determination of autoantibody status, but details are not given.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable or explicitly stated as this is an immunoassay, not an imaging device requiring expert adjudication of reader interpretations. The ground truth for clinical sensitivity and specificity is based on clinical diagnosis (American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA).

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically performed for imaging devices or AI tools that assist human readers in interpretation. The ADVIA Centaur anti-CCP IgG assay is a standalone diagnostic laboratory test.

6. Standalone Performance:

Yes, standalone performance was done. The entire document describes the standalone performance of the ADVIA Centaur aCCP assay in various analytical and clinical studies (linearity, dilution linearity, detection capability, high dose hook, cross-reactivity, interference, precision, specimen collection comparison, clinical concordance with a predicate, and clinical sensitivity/specificity against clinical diagnosis). The results presented are solely the performance of the algorithm/assay without human intervention in the result determination.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Analytical Performance: Based on reference materials, spiked samples with known concentrations, or established analytical methods.
• Clinical Performance (Sensitivity/Specificity):
  • RA Diagnosis: American College of Rheumatology criteria (clinical diagnosis) for RA.
  • Non-RA Status: Clinical diagnosis of various conditions (22 subgroups).
• Method Comparison: The predicate device (ARCHITECT Anti-CCP Assay) results were used as a reference point for agreement.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable in the machine learning sense. For an immunoassay, "training" is typically assay development, which involves optimizing reagents and parameters. The document doesn't specify sample sizes used during the development phase.

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

Not applicable. For an immunoassay, ground truth during development would involve well-characterized samples (e.g., confirmed positive/negative for CCP antibodies, known concentrations) to optimize the assay's performance characteristics. Specific details on this are not provided in the summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgA antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of theumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgG antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of theumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of theumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgA, IgG and IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of theumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.

Not Found

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding the ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgA Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgG Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgM Antibody ELISA, and ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgA/IgG/IgM Antibody ELISA. It doesn't contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets specific performance metrics.

The document primarily states that the FDA has reviewed the submission and determined that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices. It outlines regulatory information such as:

• Trade/Device Name: ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgA Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgG Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgM Antibody ELISA, ImmuLisa Enhanced™ RF IgA/IgG/IgM Antibody ELISA
• Regulation Number: 21 CFR 866.5775
• Regulation Name: Rheumatoid factor immunological test system
• Regulatory Class: Class II
• Product Code: DHR
• Indications for Use: Enzyme linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the qualitative or semi-quantitative detection of Rheumatoid Factor IgA, IgG, and/or IgM antibodies in human serum to aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in conjunction with other laboratory tests and clinical findings.
• Type of Use: Prescription Use

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria, device performance, study details (sample sizes, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods), MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, as these details are not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

QUANTA Flash CCP3 is a chemiluminescent immunoassay for the semi-quantitative determination of IgG anti-CCP3 antibodies in human serum. The presence of anti-CCP3 antibodies, in conjunction with clinical findings and other laboratory tests, is an aid in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

QUANTA Flash CCP3 Calibrators are intended for use with the QUANTA Flash CCP3 chemiluminescent immunoassay for the determination of IgG anti-CCP3 antibodies in human serum. Each calibrator establishes a point of reference for the working curve that is used to calculate unit values.

QUANTA Flash CCP3 Controls are intended for use with the QUANTA Flash CCP3 chemiluminescent immunoassay for quality control in the determination of IgG anti-CCP3 antibodies in human serum.

The QUANTA Flash CCP3 assay is designed to run on the BIO-FLASH® instrument. This platform is a fully automated closed system with continuous load and random access capabilities that automatically processes the samples, runs the assay and reports the results. It includes liquid handling hardware, luminometer and computer with software-user interface. The QUANTA Flash CCP3 assay utilizes a reagent cartridge format, which is compatible with the BIO-FLASH instrument.

Synthetic cyclic citrullinated peptide is coated onto paramagnetic beads. The bead suspension is lyophilized and stored in the bead tube. Prior to use in the BIO-FLASH system, the sealed reagent tubes are pierced with the reagent cartridge lid and the beads are rehydrated and resuspended using resuspension buffer by pipetting up and down with a transfer pipette. The reagent cartridge is then loaded onto the BIO-FLASH instrument. Samples are also loaded onto the instrument in sample racks. Serum samples are diluted by the BIO-FLASH with system rinse in a small disposable plastic cuvette. Small amounts of the diluted patient serum, the beads, and assay buffer are combined into a second cuvette, and mixed. This cuvette is then incubated at 37°C. The beads are magnetized and washed several times. Isoluminol conjugated anti-human IgG antibodies are then added to the cuvette, and again incubated at 37°C. The beads are magnetized and washed repeatedly. The isoluminol conjugate is oxidized when Trigger 1 (Fe(II)coproporphyrin in sodium hydroxide solution) and Trigger 2 (ureahydrogen peroxide in sodium chloride solution) are added to the flash of light produced from this reaction is measured as Relative Light Units (RLU) by the BIO-FLASH optical system. The RLU are proportional to the amount of isoluminol conjugate that is bound to the human IgG, which is in turn proportional to the amount of anti-CCP3 antibodies bound to the corresponding beads.

For quantitation, the QUANTA Flash CCP3 assay utilizes a predefined lot specific Master Curve that is uploaded onto the instrument through the reagent cartridge barcode. Every new lot number of reagent cartridge must be calibrated before first use, with the QUANTA Flash CCP3 Calibrators. Based on the results obtained with the two Calibrators included in the Calibrator Set (sold separately), an instrument specific Working Curve is created, which is used to calculate chemiluminescent units (CU) from the instrument signal (RLU) obtained for each sample.

The QUANTA Flash CCP3 kit contains the following materials:

One (1) QUANTA Flash CCP3 Reagent Cartridge One (1) vial of Resuspension buffer One (1) Transfer pipette

The QUANTA Flash CCP3 reagent cartridge contains the following reagents for 100 determinations:

• a. CCP3 coated paramagnetic beads, lyophilized.
• b. Assay buffer - colored pink, containing Tris-buffered saline, Tween 20, protein stabilizers and preservatives.
• C. Tracer IgG - Isoluminol labeled anti-human IgG antibodies in buffer, containing protein stabilizers and preservative.

The QUANTA Flash CCP3 Calibrators kit contains two vials of Calibrator 1 and two vials of Calibrator 2:

QUANTA Flash CCP3 Calibrators:

• QUANTA Flash CCP3 Calibrator 1: Two (2) barcode labeled tubes containing 0.7 mL prediluted, ready to use reagent. Calibrators contain human antibodies to CCP3 in stabilizer and preservative.

• QUANTA Flash CCP3 Calibrator 2: Two (2) barcode labeled tubes containing 0.7 mL prediluted, ready to use reagent. Calibrators contain human antibodies to CCP3 in stabilizer and preservative.
  The QUANTA Flash CCP3 Controls kit contains two vials of Negative Control and two vials of Positive Control:

QUANTA Flash CCP3 Controls:

• QUANTA Flash CCP3 Negative Control: Two (2) barcode labeled tubes containing 0.5 mL, ready to use reagent. Controls contain human antibodies to CCP3 in stabilizer and preservative.
• QUANTA Flash CCP3 Positive Control: Two (2) barcode labeled tubes containing 0.5 mL, ready to use reagent. Controls contain human antibodies to CCP3 in stabilizer and preservative.

The provided text describes the QUANTA Flash® CCP3 chemiluminescent immunoassay and its associated calibrators and controls. The study focuses on establishing the substantial equivalence of the new device to a predicate device (QUANTA Lite® CCP3 IgG ELISA) and demonstrating its analytical and clinical performance characteristics.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study as requested:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document details numerous acceptance criteria for various analytical and clinical performance characteristics. Below is a summary of some key areas:

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

• Test Set for Clinical Performance (Sensitivity/Specificity, Method Comparison):

  • Sample Size: 728 characterized samples (352 Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) samples and 376 control samples, which include various other diseases and healthy individuals).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin. The study implies these are patient samples ("clinical validation study," "cohort of characterized samples"). It's a retrospective analysis of previously collected and characterized samples.

• Test Set for Cross-reactivity:

  • Sample Size: 234 control samples (subset of the 376 total control samples).
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin, appears to be retrospective.

• Test Set for Precision: 8 samples.

• Test Set for Reproducibility: 8 (3+5) samples.

• Test Set for Linearity: 5 serum samples.

• Test Set for Interference: 3 specimens.

• Test Set for Lot-to-Lot Comparison: 5 unique samples.

• Test Set for Shelf Life (Accelerated, In-Use, Real-time): "up to 9 characterized samples with various reactivity levels," "up to 6 characterized samples," "QC panel samples."

• Test Set for Reference Range (Cut-off): 210 subjects (170 apparently healthy blood donors, 20 viral hepatitis positive, 20 autoimmune thyroid disease).

• Test Set for Expected Values: 146 apparently healthy blood donors (different from the cut-off establishment cohort).

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 for the clinical diagnosis of the test set (e.g., confirming RA diagnosis for the 352 RA patients). It refers to the samples as "characterized samples." This suggests that their disease status was determined by standard diagnostic procedures, likely involving clinicians and laboratory specialists, but the specific details are not provided in this summary.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the clinical diagnosis of the test set samples. The samples are referred to as "characterized samples," implying their diagnosis was already established prior to their use in this study.

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 an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device, specifically a chemiluminescent immunoassay for semi-quantitative determination of antibodies. It is a laboratory test, not an imaging device or AI algorithm intended for interpretation by human readers. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study where human readers (e.g., radiologists) improve with AI assistance is not applicable to this type of device and study.

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

Yes, the study primarily demonstrates the standalone performance of the QUANTA Flash® CCP3 assay. It evaluates the assay's ability to accurately detect anti-CCP3 antibodies in human serum, with the BIO-FLASH® instrument performing the automated processing and reporting. The "human-in-the-loop" aspect is limited to laboratory personnel operating the instrument and interpreting the reported numerical results based on established cut-offs, rather than an interactive AI interpretation.

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

The ground truth for the clinical performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity) relies on the clinical diagnosis of the patient samples:

• Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients: Diagnosed by unspecified clinical criteria, likely rheumatologist diagnosis based on established classification criteria for RA.
• Control samples: Patients with various other diseases or apparently healthy blood donors, where the absence of RA (or other specific autoantibodies/infections for cross-reactivity) serves as the ground truth.

For analytical characteristics (precision, linearity, interference, etc.), the ground truth is often established by reference materials, defined concentrations, or established spiking protocols (e.g., known concentrations of interfering substances).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly describe a separate "training set" in the context typically used for machine learning algorithms. This is a traditional IVD device, not an AI algorithm that learns from data.

However, the concept of "training" or "calibration" is present in the context of the assay's internal calibration and master curve generation:

• Master Curve Standards: The QUANTA Flash CCP3 assay uses 7 "Master Curve Standards" with assigned CU values (e.g., 4.6 CU to 2776.8 CU) to create a lot-specific Master Curve. This could be considered analogous to a calibration/training data set for the instrument's internal quantitation.
• Calibrators: Two calibrators are used with each new reagent cartridge lot to create an instrument-specific Working Curve.

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

Given that this is an immunoassay, not an AI algorithm, the "ground truth" for its internal calibration (Master Curve Standards and Calibrators) is established through:

• Assigned Values: The 7 Master Curve Standards have "Assigned Values" in CU (Chemiluminescent units), determined during the manufacturing process.
• Traceability: Calibrator and Control values are "directly traceable to the in-house Standards that are used to create the Master Curves."
• Reference Material: Traceability to an external reference material was also established by testing the IUIS-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reference reagent for ACPA, which has an assigned value of 100 U/mL. This allows for conversion between CU and U/mL.

Essentially, the "ground truth" for the device's internal quantitation is derived from a hierarchy of internal standards, calibrated and assigned specific values during manufacturing, and traceable to external reference materials.

Ask a specific question about this device

The IMMULITE 2000 Anti-CCP IgG assay is an in vitro diagnostic immunoassay for the semi-quantitative determination of the IgG class of autoantibodies specific to cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) in human serum (including Serum Separator Tubes) or plasma (EDTA or lithium heparin) on the IMMULITE 2000 system. Detection of anti-CCP antibodies is used as an aid in the diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and should be used in conjunction with other clinical information. Autoantibody levels represent one parameter in a multi-criteria diagnostic process, encompassing both clinical and laboratory-based assessments.

The IMMULITE 2000 Anti-CCP IgG Calibration Verification Material (CVM) is for in vitro diagnostic use, as a control for calibration verification of the IMMULITE 2000 Anti-CCP IgG assay on the IMMULITE 2000 system.

The IMMULITE 2000 Anti-CCP IgG assay consists of the following components:

• Anti-CCP IgG bead pack coated with cyclic citrullinated peptide . (CCP) antigen
• Anti-CCP IgG reagent wedge containing bovine calf intestine . conjugated to a monoclonal murine anti-human IgG antibody
• Anti-CCP IgG adjustors, low and high, containing lyophilized . human serum with IgG reactive to CCP
• Anti-CCP IgG controls, negative and positive, containing human . serum
• . Autoantibody sample diluent containing protein/buffer matrix

The IMMULITE Anti-CCP IgG Calibration Verification Material consists of one set of four vials, containing low, intermediate and high levels of lyophilized human serum with IgG reactive to cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP), in buffer with preservative, plus an anti-CCP-free sample.

The IMMULITE® 2000 Anti-CCP IgG Assay is an in vitro diagnostic immunoassay for the semi-quantitative determination of the IgG class of autoantibodies specific to cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). It is used as an aid in the diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and should be used in conjunction with other clinical information.

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

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a single, consolidated table. However, performance characteristics are reported, which implicitly define what the manufacturer considers acceptable for their device to perform as intended and to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device. Based on the performance characteristics presented, the following can be inferred as the "acceptance criteria" through the demonstrated results.

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

The document describes several studies, each with its own sample size and data provenance:

• Precision/Reproducibility Study:
  • 20-Day Imprecision: 11 samples over 20 days, 2 instruments, 2 reagent lots, 2 runs/day, 2 replicates/sample. Total N for calculations is 320 for each sample. Data provenance not specified, but likely internal (manufacturer's lab).
  • Reproducibility (Multi-site): Serum donor panels from precision study, 2 different reagent lots, run over 10 days, 2 runs/day, 4 replicates/run. Tested at three external testing sites. N=244 to 246 for each sample for Reagent Lot 201, and N=228 to 240 for Reagent Lot 202. Data provenance suggests multi-site, potentially from different geographical regions but not explicitly stated. Retrospective.
• Linearity Study: A dilution series (11 dilutions) prepared from a reactive and non-reactive serum pool. Run in triplicate on one IMMULITE® 2000 instrument. Data provenance likely internal.
• Detection Limit Study:
  • LoB: Non-reactive donor sample tested on 3 instruments over 5 days, twice daily, 2 lots of reagent, 2 replicates/run. NB = 732 blank measurements. Data provenance not specified, likely internal.
  • LoD: Five Anti-CCP serum samples (0.26 to 2.5 U/mL) assayed in replicates of 6 using 2 reagent kit lots, run for 5 days with 2 runs/day. Two instruments and 2 operators, generating 960 observations. Data provenance not specified, likely internal.
• Analytical Specificity (Interference) Study: One control sample and five (5) different sample pools with differing Anti-CCP concentrations (range 2.0 U/mL to 205 U/mL) were used. Each substance spiked separately. Data provenance not specified, likely internal.
• Assay Cut-off Determination: 388 samples: 212 apparently healthy samples, 106 RA positive samples, 70 anti-CCP positive samples (as determined by a 3rd party method). Data provenance not specified (country of origin), but implies external patient samples. Retrospective.
• Method Comparison with Predicate Device:
  • Reagent Lot 1: 255 unaltered patient serum samples.
  • Reagent Lot 2: 256 unaltered patient serum samples.
  • Data provenance not specified (country of origin), but implies external patient samples. Retrospective.
• Matrix Comparison: 39 matched serum and plasma samples (serum clot, Lithium Heparin, SST, EDTA plasma tubes). 21 of these were spiked. Data provenance not specified, likely internal or from a single collection site.
• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study: 1512 patient serum samples. 1048 RA positive (classified by ACR criteria) and 464 non-RA (with potentially cross-reactive diseases). Data provenance not specified (country of origin), but implies external patient samples. Retrospective.
• Expected Values/Reference Range Study: 200 serum samples from presumed healthy male and female donors. Data provenance not specified (country of origin). Retrospective.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth for any of the test sets.

• For the Assay Cut-off Determination and Method Comparison studies, "RA positive samples" and "anti-CCP positive samples, as determined by a 3rd party method" are mentioned, suggesting a clinical diagnosis or another validated assay served as the reference, but reviewer expertise is not detailed.
• For the Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study, "RA positive patients were classified according to the ACR criteria." The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria are a widely accepted standard for RA diagnosis, implying that these classifications were made by qualified clinicians (rheumatologists or physicians trained in RA diagnosis). However, the number of such experts and their specific qualifications are not provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test sets.

• For the Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Study, the RA positive patient classification "according to the ACR criteria" is a standardized diagnostic approach, which implicitly involves clinical assessment. However, how consistency or discrepancies in these classifications were handled (e.g., by multiple clinicians, consensus panels) is not described.

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) immunoassay, which generates quantitative or semi-quantitative results rather than images requiring human interpretation. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improving with AI vs. without AI assistance" is not applicable in this context. The comparison is primarily between the device's output and clinical reference standards or predicate IVD devices.

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

Yes, the studies conducted are inherently "standalone" in the sense that they evaluate the performance of the IMMULITE® 2000 Anti-CCP IgG Assay directly, without a human-in-the-loop component for result generation. The assay produces a numerical result (U/mL) which is then interpreted against a clinical cut-off. Performance characteristics like precision, linearity, detection limit, analytical specificity, and clinical sensitivity/specificity assess the algorithm's (assay's) performance. While the interpretation of the results by clinicians for actual patient diagnosis involves human judgment, the device itself provides an objective measurement.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Different types of ground truth were used depending on the study:

• Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity: Patients classified as RA positive "according to the ACR criteria" (American College of Rheumatology criteria). This represents expert consensus clinical diagnosis based on established medical guidelines.
• Assay Cut-off Determination: "RA positive samples" and "anti-CCP positive samples, as determined by a 3rd party method." This implies either clinical diagnosis (for RA positive) or results from a legally marketed predicate/reference assay (for anti-CCP positive).
• Method Comparison with Predicate Device: The predicate device, DIASTAT™ Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide (anti-CCP) ELISA, results were used as the comparator for agreement analyses. This represents comparison to an existing, validated diagnostic method.
• Laboratory Performance (Precision, Linearity, LoD, Interference): Ground truth is typically established by the inherent properties of the prepared samples (e.g., spiked concentrations, known non-reactive samples) or statistical calculations from repeated measurements.

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 algorithms as the device is an immunoassay. However, if "training set" refers to samples used for developing and optimizing the assay's parameters (e.g., cut-off determination), the primary studies mentioned include:

• Assay Cut-off determination: 388 samples were used (212 healthy, 106 RA positive, 70 anti-CCP positive from a 3rd party method) for ROC analysis to establish the cut-off. This set played a role analogous to a "training/optimization set" for the cut-off value.
• Adjustors and Controls: "prepared in house and arbitrary units are assigned during the development process," suggesting internal work to define these.
• Reference Calibrators: "A lot of reference calibrators was prepared by diluting the positive unit with negative normal human serum." These calibrators were "value-assigned by the dilution factor," and this internal standard is used for traceability.

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

As noted above, for an immunoassay, the concept of a "training set" and its "ground truth" differs from typical AI/ML contexts.

• Assay Cut-off Determination: The ground truth for the 388 samples used in ROC analysis for cut-off determination was established by:
  • Clinical diagnosis: for "RA positive samples" and "healthy samples."
  • Results from a 3rd party method: for "anti-CCP positive samples."
• Reference Calibrators and Controls: These are established through internal arbitrary assignment, dilution factors, and extensive validation (e.g., precision, stability, value assignment across multiple lots and instruments) against an internal master batch (internal standard). This ensures consistency and reproducibility of the assay's quantitative output.

Ask a specific question about this device