K042118 · Zeus Scientific, Inc. · JRY · Apr 29, 2005 · Microbiology
Device Facts
Record ID
K042118
Device Name
ATHENA MULTI-LYTE EBV IGG TEST SYSTEM
Applicant
Zeus Scientific, Inc.
Product Code
JRY · Microbiology
Decision Date
Apr 29, 2005
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.3235
Device Class
Class 1
Attributes
Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K042118 · Apr 29, 2005
ATHENA MULTI-LYTE EBV IGG TEST SYSTEM
Zeus Scientific, Inc.
Retrospective clinical specimens
Retrospective clinical specimens were used to evaluate the performance of the AtheNA Multi-Lyte EBV IgG test system by comparing results against established EBV serological reagents and disease classification criteria.
Retrospective clinical specimen evaluation; Retrospective comparative study
Patients with clinical information suggesting acute infectious mononucleosis; Sample Size: 70
ELISA for EBV VCA IgG, EBNA IgG, EBV VCA IgM and heterophile antibody
Percent agreement with reference ELISA assays
Indications for Use
The Zeus Scientific, Inc. AtheNA Multi-Lyte® EBV IgG Test System is intended for the qualitative detection of IgG class antibody to three separate EBV Antigens (EBV-VCA gp-125, EBV-EA “total” and recombinant EBNA-1) in human serum using the AtheNA Multi-Lyte® System. The test system is intended to be used as an aid in the laboratory diagnosis of EBV-associated infectious mononucleosis and to provide epidemiological information on the disease caused by Epstein-Barr virus.
Device Story
Multiplexed immunoassay system detects IgG antibodies to EBV antigens (VCA, EBNA-1, EA) in human serum. Input: diluted patient serum incubated with polystyrene microspheres conjugated with specific EBV antigens; non-specific binding and calibration beads included. Process: secondary incubation with phycoerythrin-conjugated goat anti-human IgG; AtheNA Multi-Lyte instrument (Luminex LS-100) sorts beads and measures fluorescence. Output: quantitative units derived via Intra-Well Calibration Technology (internal multi-point standard curve). Used in clinical laboratories; operated by technicians. Results aid clinicians in diagnosing EBV-associated infectious mononucleosis and determining disease stage (acute, past, or no infection) based on antibody profiles.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical data provided in the document.
Technological Characteristics
Multiplexed immunoassay system for qualitative detection of IgG antibodies. Uses specific EBV antigens (VCA, EA, EBNA-1). Designed for use with the AtheNA Multi-Lyte instrument platform.
Indications for Use
Indicated for qualitative detection of IgG class antibodies to EBV-VCA, EBV-EA, and EBNA-1 in human serum to aid in laboratory diagnosis of EBV-associated diseases. For prescription use only.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Epstein-Barr virus serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological tests to identify antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus in serum. The identification aids in the diagnosis of Epstein-Barr virus infections and provides epidemiological information on diseases caused by these viruses. Epstein-Barr viruses are thought to cause infectious mononucleosis and have been associated with Burkitt's lymphoma (a tumor of the jaw in African children and young adults) and postnasal carcinoma (cancer).
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
K042118
B. Purpose for Submission:
Premarket clearance for a multiplex AtheNA Multi-Lyte® EBV IgG Test System incorporating EBV VCA IgG, EBNA IgG and EA IgG
C. Measurand:
Antibodies to EBV VCA IgG, EBNA IgG and EA IgG
D. Type of Test:
The Zeus Scientific, Inc. AtheNA Multi-Lyte EBV test system is designed to detect IgG class antibodies in human sera to a variety of EBV antigens. Test sera (properly diluted) are incubated in a vessel containing a multiplexed mixture of the bead suspension. The multiplexed bead suspension contains a mixture of distinguishable sets of polystyrene microspheres; three of these bead sets are conjugated with the three EBV antigens (EBV VCA, EBNA-1 and EBV EA). The bead mix also contains one bead set designed to detect non-specific binding and four separate bead sets used for assay calibration. If present in patient sera, specific antibodies will bind to the immobilized antigen on one or more of the bead sets. The microspheres are rinsed to remove non-reactive serum proteins. Using the Intra-Well Calibration Technology®, internal calibration bead sets are used to convert raw fluorescence into outcome (units).
E. Applicant: Zeus Scientific, Inc.
F. Proprietary and Established Names: AtheNA Multi-Lyte® Test System
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section: 21 CFR 866.3235
2. Classification: Epstein-Barr Virus Serological Reagents
3. Product code: JRY – Antiserum, Fluorescent, Epstein-Barr Virus
4. Panel: 83
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended Use: The Zeus Scientific, Inc. AtheNA Multi-Lyte® EBV IgG Test System is
{1}
intended for the qualitative detection of IgG class antibody to three separate EBV Antigens (EBV-VCA gp-125, EBV-EA “total” and recombinant EBNA-1) in human serum using the AtheNA Multi-Lyte® System. The test system is intended to be used as an aid in the laboratory diagnosis of EBV-associated infectious mononucleosis and to provide epidemiological information on the disease caused by Epstein-Barr virus.
2. Indication(s) for use: The Zeus Scientific, Inc. AtheNA Multi-Lyte EBV IgG Test System is intended for the qualitative detection of IgG class antibody to three separate EBV Antigens (EBV-VCA, EBV-EA and EBNA-1) in human serum using the AtheNA Multi-Lyte System. The test system is intended to be used with these EBV IgG markers along with anti-EBV VCA IgM to aid in the laboratory diagnosis of EBV-associated infectious mononucleosis and to provide epidemiological information on the diseases caused by EBV virus.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s): N/A
4. Special instrument requirements: This device is intended to be used with Zeus’ AtheNA Multi-Lyte® System which has previously been cleared. Zeus’ device is designed to be used with this device exclusively.
I. Device Description:
Assay Calibration
The AtheNA Multi-Lyte test system utilizes Intra-Well Calibration Technology®. Intra-Well Calibration Technology includes a multi-point standard curve within the bead suspension. With Intra-Well Calibration Technology, each well of the assay is calibrated internally without any user intervention. The standard curve is designed to self-adjust based upon the unique characteristics of the patient or control serum. Calibrator values are assigned to the internal standards by Zeus Scientific, Inc. These values are lot specific and are encoded within the lot specific Calibration CD included in the kit box.
Analyte Cut Off Values
Each analyte of the AtheNA Multi-Lyte test system has an assigned cut off value. Cut off values are determined by Zeus Scientific, Inc. for each kit lot, and are encoded within the lot specific Calibration CD included in the kit box.
Calculations
Through Intra-Well Calibration Technology, all calculations are performed automatically when using the AtheNA Multi-Lyte system. Intra-Well Calibration Technology performs a regression analysis of the internal standards and then adjusts the calculated unit values based upon an additional standard and the characteristics of the serum sample.
Reactive Reagents:
1. All reactive reagents contain sodium azide as a preservative at a concentration of 0.1% w/v)
2
{2}
3
2 Multiplexed bead suspension. Ready to use, 5.5 mL bottle. The suspension contains separate distinguishable 5.6 micron polystyrene beads that are conjugated with the following antigens: affinity purified EBV VCA gp125, affinity purified EA (roughly equal parts EA-D and EA-R) and recombinant EBNA-1. The bead mix also contains one bead set designed to detect non-specific antibodies in the patient sample (if present) and four separate bead sets used for assay calibration.
3 Phycoerythrin conjugated goat anti-human IgG (Fc chain specific). Ready to use, 15 mL amber bottle.
4 Human positive serum control. One, 0.2mL vial.
5 Human negative serum control. One, 0.2mL vial.
6 Sample diluent. One 50 mL bottle containing phosphate-buffered-saline. Ready to use. NOTE, the sample diluent will change color in the presence of serum.
## Non-Reactive Reagents:
1. One, 96-well polystyrene assay plate
2. One, 96-well dilution plate
3. One, 96-well filtration plate for rinsing the microspheres
4. Data Labels: One label is adhered to the inside lid of the kit box and a second label is inside the kit box
5. Package Insert providing instructions for use
6. CD. A compact disc that includes all lot-specific kit calibration values required for specimen analysis and assay quality control
## Materials required but not provided:
1. AtheNA Multi-Lyte System
2. Pipettes capable of accurately delivering 10 to 200 L
3. Multichannel pipette capable of accurately delivering (10-200 L)
4. Reagent reservoirs for multichannel pipettes.
5. Disposable pipette tips
6. Laboratory timer to monitor incubation steps
7. Small bath sonicator
8. Plate shaker capable of shaking at 800 RPM (optional for mixing).
9. Vacuum aspirator and vacuum manifold for washing the microspheres
{3}
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s): Diamedix EBV VCA IgG, EBNA IgG, EA IgG ELISA
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s): Diamedix EBV VCA IgG (K981812), EBNA IgG (K981829), and EA IgG (K981831) ELISA
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Cutoff calibrators | Cut off values are determined by Zeus Scientific, Inc. for each kit lot, and are encoded within the lot specific Calibration CD included in the kit box | Cutoff value is determined with a factory determined, lot specific value |
| Controls | 1 each, positive and negative control intended to monitor for substantial reagent failure. | 1 each, positive and negative control intended to monitor for substantial reagent failure. |
| Method of calibration | Intra-Well Calibration Technology | Calibration performed with calibrators in separate wells. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Intended Use | Qualitative assay using the other EBV markers for categorization of disease. | Qualitative assay using the other EBV markers for categorization of disease. |
| Automated Instrumentation | AtheNA Multi-Lyte® instrument - (Luminex® LS-100) | MAGO Plus® Automated EIA processor |
| Differences | | |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Methodology | The AtheNA multiplex EBV test system is designed to detect three IgG class antibodies in human sera in one kit. | Diamedix EBV VCA IgG, EBNA IgG, EA IgG ELISA are provided in three separate kits for differentiation of each analyte. |
| Conjugate | Phycoerythrin-conjugated goat anti-human IgG (Fc chain specific) | Immunoperoxidase-conjugated Goat anti-human IgG |
| Substrate | The suspension contains separate distinguishable | The respective EBV virus is coated on separate wells |
{4}
5
| | polystyrene beads
conjugated with following
antigens: affinity purified
EBV VCA gp125, affinity
purified EA (roughly equal
parts EA-D and EA-R) and
recombinant EBNA-1. The
bead mix also contains one
bead set designed to detect
non-specific antibodies in
the patient sample (if
present) and four separate
bead sets used for assay
calibration | in a microwell plate(s). |
| --- | --- | --- |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable): N/A
L. Test Principle: The Zeus Scientific, Inc. AtheNA Multi-Lyte EBV test system is designed to detect IgG class antibodies in human sera to a variety of EBV antigens. The test procedure involves two incubation steps:
Test sera (properly diluted) are incubated in a vessel containing a multiplexed mixture of the bead suspension. The multiplexed bead suspension contains a mixture of distinguishable sets of polystyrene microspheres; three of these bead sets are conjugated with the three EBV antigens (EBV VCA, EBNA-1 and EBV EA). The bead mix also contains one bead set designed to detect non-specific binding and four separate bead sets used for assay calibration. If present in patient sera, specific antibodies will bind to the immobilized antigen on one or more of the bead sets. The microspheres are rinsed to remove non-reactive serum proteins.
Phycoerythrin-conjugated goat anti-human IgG (Fc chain specific) is added to the vessel and the plate is incubated. The conjugate will react with IgG antibody immobilized on the solid phase in step 1. The bead suspension is then analyzed by the AtheNA Multi-Lyte instrument. The bead set(s) are sorted (identified) and the amount of reporter molecule (PE conjugate) is determined for each bead set. Using the Intra-Well Calibration Technology®, internal calibration bead sets are used to convert raw fluorescence into outcome (units).
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision was evaluated at all three clinical sites. To evaluate both intra-assay and inter-assay reproducibility, six specimens were tested. On each day of testing, each sample was diluted twice and then loaded for four replicates resulting in a total of eight wells of each of the six samples. This protocol was followed for three days. These results were then used to calculate mean U/mL values, standard deviations, and percent CV. At each site, specimens were selected in such a way that resulted in some of them being clearly negative, some being clearly positive and some were selected that were weakly positive or just near the cut off of the assay. A summary of
{5}
this testing appears above. In addition, precision testing was performed with reference serum.
## Summary of Precision Testing:
| EBV VCA | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Panel Member | Mean U/mL | Site | Within Run Day 1 | | Within Run Day 2 | | Within Run Day 3 | | Between Day | | Between Sites |
| | | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD |
| 1 | 603 | 1 | 20.12 | 3.4% | 28.17 | 4.7% | 50.64 | 8.3% | 35.01 | 5.8% | 42.18 |
| 2 | 481 | 1 | 16.88 | 3.5% | 27.84 | 5.9% | 44.12 | 9.1% | 30.73 | 6.4% | 41.99 |
| 3 | 80 | 1 | 13.15 | 14.6% | 4.77 | 5.9% | 5.96 | 8.5% | 11.76 | 14.7% | 12.37 |
| 4 | 96 | 1 | 11.09 | 10.7% | 7.61 | 8.3% | 7.44 | 8.1% | 10.47 | 10.9% | 27.38 |
| 5 | 43 | 1 | 3.62 | 8.0% | 2.83 | 6.8% | 3.29 | 7.8% | 3.55 | 8.2% | 6.21 |
| 6 | 44 | 1 | 4.62 | 10.4% | 4.14 | 9.3% | 5.68 | 13.0% | 4.66 | 10.5% | 6.55 |
| 1 | 559 | 2 | 22.23 | 4.1% | 28.30 | 5.1% | 28.79 | 5.0% | 29.97 | 5.4% | |
| 2 | 470 | 2 | 13.77 | 3.1% | 12.24 | 2.7% | 28.19 | 5.6% | 33.14 | 7.1% | |
| 3 | 77 | 2 | 5.78 | 8.4% | 3.36 | 4.2% | 3.62 | 4.3% | 7.55 | 9.8% | |
| 4 | 88 | 2 | 4.89 | 6.3% | 7.02 | 7.8% | 4.84 | 5.0% | 9.62 | 10.9% | |
| 5 | 32 | 2 | 2.56 | 8.1% | 2.60 | 8.8% | 2.39 | 6.9% | 3.13 | 9.8% | |
| 6 | 34 | 2 | 3.96 | 12.5% | 2.07 | 6.6% | 2.00 | 5.1% | 4.49 | 13.2% | |
| 1 | 584 | 3 | 27.63 | 4.3% | 14.48 | 2.6% | 22.82 | 4.1% | 48.55 | 8.3% | |
| 2 | 499 | 3 | 43.55 | 7.7% | 20.07 | 4.3% | 17.20 | 3.7% | 54.35 | 10.9% | |
| 3 | 94 | 3 | 5.59 | 5.3% | 6.30 | 7.3% | 7.69 | 8.5% | 10.32 | 11.0% | |
| 4 | 143 | 3 | 7.70 | 6.2% | 9.57 | 6.4% | 10.34 | 6.6% | 15.98 | 11.2% | |
| 5 | 33 | 3 | 2.67 | 7.1% | 2.83 | 9.3% | 2.73 | 8.8% | 4.18 | 12.7% | |
| 6 | 36 | 3 | 3.23 | 7.8% | 4.16 | 12.3% | 2.97 | 9.4% | 5.32 | 15.0% | |
| EBNA | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Panel Member | Mean U/mL | Site | Within Run Day 1 | | Within Run Day 2 | | Within Run Day 3 | | Between Day | | Between Sites |
| | | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD |
| 7 | 941 | 1 | 55.26 | 6.0% | 48.13 | 5.2% | 53.18 | 5.4% | 57.99 | 6.2% | 45.14 |
| 8 | 1041 | 1 | 39.14 | 3.8% | 30.75 | 2.9% | 76.73 | 7.5% | 52.53 | 5.0% | 55.95 |
| 9 | 110 | 1 | 8.85 | 7.9% | 18.41 | 16.1% | 7.38 | 7.2% | 12.94 | 11.8% | 16.11 |
| 10 | 43 | 1 | 5.42 | 11.4% | 3.65 | 9.6% | 5.15 | 12.1% | 6.00 | 14.0% | 8.00 |
| 11 | 32 | 1 | 2.38 | 7.1% | 3.00 | 9.3% | 2.38 | 7.6% | 2.62 | 8.1% | 7.60 |
| 12 | 23 | 1 | 2.93 | 11.9% | 2.72 | 11.6% | 2.45 | 11.4% | 2.88 | 12.4% | 6.88 |
| 7 | 905 | 2 | 30.25 | 3.4% | 12.96 | 1.4% | 26.95 | 2.9% | 31.76 | 3.5% | |
| 8 | 1000 | 2 | 32.93 | 3.4% | 24.48 | 2.5% | 28.53 | 2.7% | 59.45 | 5.9% | |
| 9 | 89 | 2 | 6.58 | 7.6% | 2.20 | 2.0% | 4.57 | 4.4% | 10.35 | 10.4% | |
| 10 | 42 | 2 | 5.13 | 15.3% | 4.32 | 10.0% | 2.98 | 6.0% | 7.84 | 18.7% | |
| 11 | 18 | 2 | 1.39 | 7.2% | 1.85 | 12.0% | 1.49 | 7.5% | 2.51 | 13.8% | |
| 12 | 10 | 2 | 1.46 | 17.9% | 2.07 | 21.8% | 2.07 | 16.4% | 2.64 | 26.1% | |
| 7 | 931 | 3 | 20.77 | 2.2% | 32.04 | 3.4% | 27.81 | 3.1% | 34.56 | 3.7% | |
| 8 | 1046 | 3 | 45.47 | 4.2% | 27.07 | 2.6% | 43.14 | 4.2% | 45.33 | 4.3% | |
| 9 | 111 | 3 | 9.05 | 6.5% | 8.10 | 8.4% | 5.42 | 5.5% | 21.08 | 19.0% | |
| 10 | 32 | 3 | 5.55 | 18.5% | 2.60 | 7.7% | 4.17 | 13.3% | 4.39 | 13.9% | |
| 11 | 17 | 3 | 5.37 | 27.9% | 3.16 | 20.5% | 2.66 | 15.9% | 4.08 | 23.8% | |
| 12 | 10 | 3 | 3.14 | 24.4% | 2.98 | 31.3% | 2.49 | 32.2% | 3.51 | 34.9% | |
| EA | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Panel Member | Mean U/mL | Site | Within Run Day 1 | | Within Run Day 2 | | Within Run Day 3 | | Between Day | | Between Sites |
| | | | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD |
| 13 | 785 | 1 | 48.68 | 6.3% | 47.35 | 6.0% | 86.79 | 10.9% | 62.19 | 7.9% | 70.85 |
| 14 | 433 | 1 | 23.55 | 5.4% | 37.22 | 8.9% | 38.29 | 8.6% | 34.38 | 7.9% | 45.63 |
| 15 | 100 | 1 | 6.65 | 6.5% | 3.82 | 3.9% | 11.97 | 12.0% | 7.95 | 7.9% | 13.70 |
| 16 | 141 | 1 | 6.25 | 4.4% | 14.79 | 10.1% | 8.68 | 6.5% | 11.40 | 8.1% | 15.73 |
| 17 | 78 | 1 | 5.62 | 6.8% | 6.95 | 9.1% | 11.20 | 14.9% | 8.46 | 10.8% | 23.07 |
| 18 | 61 | 1 | 7.78 | 12.0% | 8.94 | 14.6% | 12.08 | 21.3% | 9.94 | 16.3% | 20.10 |
| 13 | 687 | 2 | 20.68 | 3.0% | 35.62 | 5.2% | 42.69 | 6.2% | 32.78 | 4.8% | |
| 14 | 425 | 2 | 15.72 | 4.0% | 24.87 | 6.2% | 20.44 | 4.3% | 40.73 | 9.6% | |
| 15 | 119 | 2 | 4.72 | 4.3% | 4.72 | 4.3% | 7.45 | 5.5% | 13.37 | 11.2% | |
| 16 | 119 | 2 | 4.24 | 3.9% | 5.70 | 4.7% | 11.44 | 9.1% | 10.22 | 8.6% | |
| 17 | 35 | 2 | 4.75 | 14.1% | 3.29 | 11.5% | 6.25 | 14.6% | 7.60 | 21.7% | |
| 18 | 21 | 2 | 3.78 | 18.5% | 3.78 | 18.0% | 4.12 | 18.0% | 3.88 | 18.1% | |
| 13 | 677 | 3 | 26.82 | 3.6% | 18.56 | 2.8% | 39.96 | 6.4% | 55.59 | 8.2% | |
| 14 | 457 | 3 | 20.59 | 3.9% | 19.33 | 4.6% | 16.10 | 3.8% | 54.87 | 12.0% | |
| 15 | 107 | 3 | 6.32 | 6.6% | 8.54 | 7.8% | 11.08 | 9.6% | 12.01 | 11.2% | |
| 16 | 130 | 3 | 5.70 | 3.8% | 4.49 | 3.8% | 7.48 | 6.2% | 16.54 | 12.7% | |
| 17 | 31 | 3 | 8.67 | 20.5% | 6.73 | 25.2% | 5.96 | 23.7% | 10.52 | 33.5% | |
| 18 | 22 | 3 | 6.97 | 24.5% | 9.13 | 40.8% | 5.76 | 34.9% | 8.68 | 38.6% | |
{6}
b. Linearity/assay reportable range: N/A
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods): There is no traceability for the calibrators except for the cutoff having been set by testing a number of negative samples and setting the cutoff of +3 Standard Deviation (SD). The calibrators are set at a relatively low positive, mid positive and negative. These are utilized with Zeus' Intra-Well Calibration Technology; each well of the assay is calibrated internally without any user intervention. The standard curve is designed to self-adjust based upon the unique characteristics of the patient or control serum.
1. The Negative Control and the two Positive Controls must all be negative on the non-specific or control antigen bead
2. The Negative Control must be negative for each and every analyte included in the multiplexed bead suspension
3. The Positive Control must be positive for all of the three analytes included in the multiplexed bead suspension. These ranges are lot specific and are encoded within the Calibration CD. PC ranges may be viewed by clicking on the “Control Graphs” button of the AtheNA software and then clicking “Control Upper/Lower Limits”
d. Detection limit: N/A
e. Analytical specificity: Analytical specificity was based on comparison of this device to the established predicate, Diamedix.
f. Assay cut-off: The cut off for each assay was established using a negative population for each marker. The AtheNA results were determined for this negative population, by establishing a cut off set at approximately the mean of the negative results plus three times the standard deviation (SD).
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
For purposes of percent agreement calculations, the Athena EBV IgG equivocal results were assigned to the opposite clinical interpretation than that of the comparative assay result. Likewise, the comparative assay equivocal results were assigned to the opposite clinical interpretation than that of the AtheNA EBV IgG result. The percent agreement between the AtheNA EBV IgG assays and the comparative EBV IgG ELISA assays are summarized in the following tables by specimen EBV classification:
{7}
Percent Agreement and Confidence Intervals by EBV Classification; AtheNA EBV VCA IgG Assay vs. EBV VCA IgG Reference ELISA Assay
Prospective Specimens:
| EBV Classification | Negative Percent Agreement % (x/n)^{b} | 95% Exact Confidence Interval | Positive Percent Agreement % (x/n)^{a} | 95% Exact Confidence Interval |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acute | 9.1%(1/11) | 0% – 26.1% | 94.1%(16/17) | 82.9% – 100% |
| No infection | 97.9%(92/94) | 95.0% - 100% | N/A^{c} | N/A |
| Past infection | N/A | N/A | 91.9%(441/480) | 89.4% - 94.3% |
| Indeterminate | 44.4%(12/27) | 25.7% - 63.2% | 90.5%(57/63) | 83.2% - 97.7% |
| Overall | 78.9%(105/133) | 72.0% - 85.9% | 91.8%(514/560) | 89.5% - 94.1% |
a x = the number of AtheNA EBV VCA IgG results that are confirmed positive in agreement with the reference EBV VCA IgG confirmed positive results; n = the total number of reference EBV VCA IgG results that are confirmed positive
b x = the number of AtheNA EBV VCA IgG results that are nonreactive in agreement with the reference EBV VCA IgG; n = the total number of reference EBV VCA IgG results that are nonreactive
c Agreement resulted in 0/0 specimens. In such cases, percent agreement and 95% confidence intervals could not be calculated.
Percent Agreement and Confidence Intervals by EBV Classification; AtheNA EBNA IgG Assay vs. EBNA IgG Reference ELISA Assay
Prospective Specimens:
| EBV Classification | Negative Percent Agreement % (x/n)^{b} | 95% Exact Confidence Interval | Positive Percent Agreement % (x/n)^{a} | 95% Exact Confidence Interval |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acute | 85.2%(23/27) | 71.8% – 98.6% | N/A^{c} | N/A |
| No infection | 95.7%(90/94) | 91.7% - 99.8% | N/A | N/A |
| Past infection | N/A | N/A | 98.3%(472/480) | 97.2% - 99.5% |
| Indeterminate | 53.3%(24/45) | 38.8% - 67.9% | 91.1%(41/45) | 82.8% - 99.4% |
| Overall | 77.0%(137/178) | 70.8% - 83.2% | 97.7%(513/525) | 96.4% - 99.0% |
a x = the number of AtheNA EBNA IgG results that are confirmed positive in agreement with the reference EBNA IgG confirmed positive results; n = the total number of reference EBNA IgG results that are confirmed positive
b x = the number of AtheNA EBNA IgG results that are nonreactive in agreement with the reference EBNA IgG; n = the total number of reference EBNA IgG results that are nonreactive
c Agreement resulted in 0/0 specimens. In such cases, percent agreement and 95% confidence intervals could not be calculated.
{8}
# Percent Agreement and Confidence Intervals by EBV Classification; AtheNA EBV EA IgG Assay vs. EBV EA IgG Reference ELISA Assay
Prospective Specimens:
| EBV Classification | Negative Percent Agreement % (x/n)b | 95% Exact Confidence Interval | Positive Percent Agreement % (x/n)a | 95% Exact Confidence Interval |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acute | 79.2%(19/24) | 62.9% – 95.4% | 25.0%(1/4) | 0% – 67.4% |
| No infection | 97.9%(93/95) | 95.0% - 100% | N/Ac | N/A |
| Past infection | 55.8%(213/382) | 50.8% - 60.7% | 96.9%(95/98) | 93.5% - 100% |
| Indeterminate | 78.7%(59/75) | 69.4% - 87.9% | 86.7%(13/15) | 69.5% - 100% |
| Overall | 66.7%(384/576) | 62.8% - 70.5% | 93.2%(109/117) | 88.6% - 97.7% |
a $x =$ the number of AtheNA EBV EA IgG results that are confirmed positive in agreement with the reference EBV EA IgG confirmed positive results; $n =$ the total number of reference EBV EA IgG results that are confirmed positive
b $x =$ the number of AtheNA EBV EA IgG results that are nonreactive in agreement with the reference EBV EA IgG; $n =$ the total number of reference EBV EA IgG results that are nonreactive
c Agreement resulted in 0/0 specimens. In such cases, percent agreement and $95\%$ confidence intervals could not be calculated.
# Percent Agreement and Confidence Intervals by EBV Classification; AtheNA EBV VCA IgG Assay vs. EBV VCA IgG Reference ELISA Assay
Retrospective Specimens - Expected Acute
| EBV Classification | Negative Percent Agreement % (x/n)b | 95% Exact Confidence Interval | Positive Percent Agreement % (x/n)a | 95% Exact Confidence Interval |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acute | 6.3%(1/16) | 0% – 18.1% | 100%(34/34) | 100% – 100% |
| No infection | 0.0%(0/1) | 0% - 0% | N/Ac | N/A |
| Past infection | N/A | N/A | 100%(3/3) | 100% - 100% |
| Indeterminate | 11.1%(1/9) | 0% - 31.6% | 85.7%(6/7) | 59.8% - 100% |
| Overall | 7.7%(2/26) | 0% - 17.9% | 97.7%(43/44) | 93.3% - 100% |
a $x =$ the number of AtheNA EBV VCA IgG results that are confirmed positive in agreement with the reference EBV VCA IgG confirmed positive results; $n =$ the total number of reference EBV VCA IgG results that are confirmed positive
b $x =$ the number of AtheNA EBV VCA IgG results that are nonreactive in agreement with the reference EBV VCA IgG; $n =$ the total number of reference EBV VCA IgG results that are nonreactive
c Agreement resulted in 0/0 specimens. In such cases, percent agreement and $95\%$ confidence intervals could not be calculated.
{9}
10
# Percent Agreement and Confidence Intervals by EBV Classification; AtheNA EBNA IgG Assay vs. EBNA IgG Reference ELISA Assay
## Retrospective Specimens - Expected Acute
| EBV Classification | Negative Percent Agreement % (x/n)^{b} | 95% Exact Confidence Interval | Positive Percent Agreement % (x/n)^{a} | 95% Exact Confidence Interval |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acute | 96.0% (48/50) | 90.6% – 100% | N/A^{c} | N/A |
| No infection | 100% (1/1) | 100% - 100% | N/A | N/A |
| Past infection | N/A | N/A | 100% (3/3) | 100% - 100% |
| Indeterminate | 100% (4/4) | 100% - 100% | 8.3% (1/12) | 0% - 24.0% |
| Overall | 96.4% (53/55) | 91.4% - 100% | 26.7% (4/15) | 4.3% - 49.0% |
a x = the number of AtheNA EBNA IgG results that are confirmed positive in agreement with the reference EBNA IgG confirmed positive results; n = the total number of reference EBNA IgG results that are confirmed positive
b x = the number of AtheNA EBNA IgG results that are nonreactive in agreement with the reference EBNA IgG; n = the total number of reference EBNA IgG results that are nonreactive
c Agreement resulted in 0/0 specimens. In such cases, percent agreement and 95% confidence intervals could not be calculated.
# Percent Agreement and Confidence Intervals by EBV Classification; AtheNA EBV EA IgG Assay vs. EBV EA IgG Reference ELISA Assay
## Retrospective Specimens - Expected Acute
| EBV Classification | Negative Percent Agreement % (x/n)^{b} | 95% Exact Confidence Interval | Positive Percent Agreement % (x/n)^{a} | 95% Exact Confidence Interval |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acute | 80.6% (25/31) | 66.7% – 94.6% | 21.1% (4/19) | 2.7% – 39.4% |
| No infection | 100% (1/1) | 100% - 100% | N/A^{c} | N/A |
| Past infection | 50.0% (1/2) | 0% - 100% | 100% (1/1) | 100% - 100% |
| Indeterminate | 100% (10/10) | 100% - 100% | 16.7% (1/6) | 0% - 46.5% |
| Overall | 84.1% (37/44) | 73.3% - 94.9% | 23.1% (6/26) | 6.9% - 39.3% |
a x = the number of AtheNA EBV EA IgG results that are confirmed positive in agreement with the reference EBV EA IgG confirmed positive results; n = the total number of reference EBV EA IgG results that are confirmed positive
b x = the number of AtheNA EBV VCA IgM results that are nonreactive in agreement with the reference EBV EA IgG; n = the total number of reference EBV EA IgG results that are nonreactive
c Agreement resulted in 0/0 specimens. In such cases, percent agreement and 95% confidence intervals could not be calculated.
## 3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity: N/A
b. Clinical specificity: N/A
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
A multisite comparative study was performed to evaluate the performance of the Zeus Scientific, Inc., AtheNA Multi-Lyte EBV IgG test system to the disease classification of the specimens as determined by other EBV serological reagents. Specimens were tested by ELISA for EBV VCA IgG, EBNA IgG, EBV VCA IgM and for heterophile antibody using a latex agglutination assay for purposes of classification into disease states. EBV EA IgG ELISA results were not considered for purposes of classification of specimens into disease states. There were a total of 763 specimens tested. Of the 763 specimens tested, 693 were prospective specimens and 70 were retrospective specimens. The retrospective group was selected since clinical information suggested that they were
{10}
representative of acute cases of infectious mononucleosis.
Tables were created based on a hypothetical samples tested according to previous clinical data in the form of EBV disease category incorporated into a table.
| EBV Classification | Heterophile | VCA IgM | VCA IgG | EBNA-1 IgG | EBV EA IgG1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Acute infection | + | + | + | - | + |
| | + | + | - | - | + |
| | - | + | + | - | + |
| | + | + | + | - | n/a |
| | + | + | - | - | n/a |
| | - | + | + | - | n/a |
| No infection | - | - | - | - | - |
| | n/a | - | - | - | - |
| Past infection | - | - | + | + | + |
| | n/a | - | + | + | + |
| | - | - | + | + | n/a |
| | n/a | - | + | + | n/a |
| Indeterminate | Any combination not noted in the three categories above. | | | | |
| 1 The EA antigen used for AtheNA contains roughly equal parts of EA/D and EA/R. Anti-EA/D shows a transient rise during acute infection, undetectable after 3 – 6 months. Anti-EA/R appears after EA/D and may be present greater than or equal to 2 years. | | | | | |
| + = Reactive - = Nonreactive n/a = not available | | | | | |
4. Clinical cut-off: Because there was no clinical cutoff established per se, but only use of the above table to determine disease categorization, the cutoff was determined by testing negative samples and establishing an equivocal zone around the cutoff based on 3 standard deviations thereof. The testing is controlled by three calibrators, two controls and evaluating a sample by testing multiple analytes.
5. Expected values/Reference range: Because there was no clinical information available on the samples tested, the most that could be established is the prevalence of the sex of each marker tested compared to comparable literature studies.
# EBV VCA IgG:
For the female group, $81.1\%$ (167/206) were positive, $18.0\%$ (37/206) were negative, $1.0\%$ (2/206) were equivocal and $0\%$ (0/206) yielded invalid results. For the male group, $78.7\%$ (107/136) were positive, $19.9\%$ (27/136) were negative, $1.5\%$ (2/136) were equivocal and $0\%$ (0/136) yielded invalid results. With respect to the entire population of
{11}
763 specimens tested, 606/763 (79.4%) were positive, 148/763 (19.4%) were negative, 8/763 (1.0%) were equivocal and 1/763 (0.1%) were invalid.
## EBNA IgG:
For the female group, 86.4% (178/206) were positive, 12.1% (25/206) were negative, 1.5% (3/206) were equivocal and 0% (0/206) yielded invalid results. For the male group, 86.8% (118/136) were positive, 13.2% (18/136) were negative, 0% (0/136) were equivocal and 0% (0/136) yielded invalid results. With respect to the entire population of 763 specimens tested, 547/763 (71.7%) were positive, 211/763 (27.7%) were negative, 4/763 (0.5%) were equivocal and 1/763 (0.1%) were invalid.
## EBV EA IgG:
For the female group, 49.5% (102/206) were positive, 46.6% (96/206) were negative, 3.9% (8/206) were equivocal and 0% (0/206) yielded invalid results. For the male group, 49.3% (67/136) were positive, 45.6% (62/136) were negative, 5.1% (7/136) were equivocal and 0% (0/136) yielded invalid results. With respect to the entire population of 763 specimens tested, 283/763 (37.1%) were positive, 452/763 (59.2%) were negative, 27/763 (3.5%) were equivocal and 1/763 (0.1%) were invalid.
N. Proposed Labeling: The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
O. Conclusion: The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
12
{12}
13
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.