For the quantitative in vitro determination of Total Bilirubin in serum and plasma. Total Bilirubin measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hemolytic, biliary and liver disorders, including hepatitis and cirrhosis. This in vitro diagnostic device is intended for prescription use only.
Device Story
The Total Bilirubin (T BIL) assay is an in vitro diagnostic reagent kit used for the quantitative measurement of total bilirubin in serum and plasma. It utilizes a vanadate oxidation method where bilirubin is oxidized by vanadate at pH 2.9 to form biliverdin. This reaction causes a decrease in yellow color intensity, measured spectrophotometrically at 450/546 nm. The decrease in optical density is proportional to the total bilirubin concentration. The device is intended for use in clinical laboratory settings by trained professionals on the RX Daytona plus analyzer. Results assist clinicians in diagnosing and monitoring hemolytic, biliary, and liver disorders. The assay provides a reportable range of 0.21–26.3 mg/dL, with an auto-dilution feature for higher concentrations. It benefits patients by providing accurate bilirubin levels to guide clinical management of liver and biliary conditions.
Clinical Evidence
Bench testing only. Precision evaluated per CLSI EP05-A2 (n=80 replicates/sample); total CV% ranged 2.2–7.4%. Linearity (0.2–26.3 mg/dL) confirmed per CLSI EP06-A (r=0.9999). LoB/LoD/LoQ determined per CLSI EP17-A2 (LoQ 0.211 mg/dL). Interference testing (CLSI EP7-A2) showed no significant interference for hemoglobin, triglycerides, Intralipid, or ascorbic acid. Method comparison (n=106) against predicate yielded y=1.02x-0.02 (r=0.9999). Matrix comparison (n=40) confirmed lithium heparin plasma equivalence (y=0.99x+0.04, r=0.999). Reference range verified with 30 healthy donors.
Technological Characteristics
Quantitative colorimetric assay. Reagents: Citrate buffer (pH 2.9), phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), sodium metavanadate. Sensing principle: Spectrophotometric measurement of optical density decrease at 450/546 nm. Form factor: Liquid reagents for automated clinical chemistry analyzer (Randox RX Daytona Plus). Standards: CLSI EP05-A2, EP07-A2, C28-A3, EP06-A, EP09-A, EP17-A2.
Indications for Use
Indicated for the quantitative in vitro determination of Total Bilirubin in serum and plasma for the diagnosis and treatment of hemolytic, biliary, and liver disorders (e.g., hepatitis, cirrhosis) in patients requiring clinical laboratory testing.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A bilirubin (total or direct) test system is a device intended to measure the levels of bilirubin (total or direct) in plasma or serum. Measurements of the levels of bilirubin, an organic compound formed during the normal and abnormal distruction of red blood cells, if used in the diagnosis and treatment of liver, hemolytic hematological, and metabolic disorders, including hepatitis and gall bladder block.
Predicate Devices
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostic Inc, Total Bilirubin 2 reagent (K063845)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION
DECISION SUMMARY
ASSAY ONLY TEMPLATE
A. 510(k) Number:
k152344
B. Purpose for Submission:
New device
C. Measurand:
Bilirubin, Total
D. Type of Test:
Quantitative colorimetric assay
E. Applicant:
Randox Laboratories Limited
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
Total Bilirubin (T BIL)
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 862.1110 Bilirubin (total or direct) test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product code:
JFM
4. Panel:
Clinical Chemistry, 75
{1}
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
See indications for use below.
2. Indication(s) for use:
For the quantitative in vitro determination of Total Bilirubin for serum and plasma. Total Bilirubin measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hemolytic, biliary and liver disorders, including hepatitis and cirrhosis.
This in vitro diagnostic device is intended for prescription use only.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For prescription use only
Not intended for use with neonates
4. Special instrument requirements:
Randox RX Daytona Plus
I. Device Description:
The device consists of two ready to use reagents.
4 x 20 ml bottles of Reagent 1 (R1) contains 0.1 mol/L citrate, pH 2.9, 0.9% detergent, and antimicrobial.
4 x 8 ml bottles of Reagent 2 (R2) contains 10 mmol/L phosphate, pH 7.0 and 4 mmol/L sodium metavanadate.
The device requires the use of Randox calibration serum level 3 (calibrator) - previously cleared under k053153.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Siemens ADVIA Chemistry Total Bilirubin_2
{2}
2. Predicate 510(k) number(s):
k063845
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device k152344 Total Bilirubin Randox Laboratories | Predicate Device k063845 Total Bilirubin_2 Siemens Healthcare Diagnostic Inc |
| Intended Use | For the quantitative in vitro determination of Total Bilirubin in serum and plasma. Total Bilirubin measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of hemolytic, biliary and liver disorders, including hepatitis and cirrhosis. | Same |
| Assay Method | Vanadate oxidation method | Same |
| Control Frequency | Randox Laboratories assayed human multisera Level 2 & 3. Two levels of control should be assayed at least once a day. | Same |
| Sample Type | Serum, lithium heparin plasma | Same |
| Reagent Composition | R1. Citrate buffer, 0.1 mol/L, pH 2.9 0.9% Detergent, Antimicrobial R2. Phosphate buffer, 10 mmol/L, pH 7.0 Sodium Metavanadate 4 mmol/L | Same |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device k152344 Total Bilirubin Randox Laboratories | Predicate Device k063845 Total Bilirubin_2 Siemens Healthcare Diagnostic Inc |
| Test Range | 0.2 – 26.3 mg/dL | 0.1 – 35 mg/dL |
| Storage temperature, unopened | Reagents are stable up to the expiry date when stored unopened at +2 to +8°C. | +2 to +35°C |
{3}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Candidate Device
k152344
Total Bilirubin
Randox Laboratories | Predicate Device
k063845
Total Bilirubin_2
Siemens Healthcare
Diagnostic Inc |
| Calibration
Frequency | (1) Every 28 days, (2) with change of reagent lot, or (3) as indicated by quality control procedures. | Every 60 days |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
CLSI EP05-A2, Evaluation of Precision Performance of Quantitative Measurement Methods; Approved Guideline - Second Edition.
CLSI EP07-A2, Interference Testing in Clinical Chemistry; Approved Guideline - Second Edition.
CLSI C28-A3, Defining, Establishing, and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Clinical Laboratory; Approved Guideline - Third Edition.
CLSI EP06-A, Evaluation of the Linearity of Quantitative Measurement Procedures: A Statistical Approach; Approved Guideline.
CLSI EP09-A, Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples; Approved Guideline.
CLSI E17-A2, Evaluation of detection capability for clinical laboratory measurement procedures; Approved Guideline - Second Edition.
L. Test Principle:
The bilirubin is oxidized by vanadate at about pH 2.9 to produce biliverdin. In the presence of detergent and vanadate, both conjugate (direct) and unconjugated bilirubin are oxidized. This oxidation reaction causes a decrease in the optical density at 450/546 nm. The decrease in optical density is specific to bilirubin and proportional to the total bilirubin concentration. The biliverdin concentration is measured at endpoint of the oxidation reaction.
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
{4}
# a. Precision/Reproducibility:
Precision estimates were derived according to CLSI EP05-A2.
Within run and total imprecision for total bilirubin were evaluated on the RX Daytona Plus by testing pooled serum samples using two reagent lots. Each sample was assayed two times per run, two runs per day for 20 days. Total number of replicates for each sample was 80. Both reagent lots yielded similar results. The results from one representative lot are summarized below.
| Precision: | | Within-run | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Specimen Type | Concentration, mg/dL | SD | CV% | SD | CV% |
| Serum | 0.3 | 0.02 | 6.9 | .02 | 7.4 |
| Serum | 1.1 | 0.05 | 4.0 | 0.06 | 5.4 |
| Serum | 6.7 | 0.11 | 1.6 | 0.16 | 2.4 |
| Serum | 12.0 | 0.12 | 1.0 | 0.28 | 2.3 |
| Serum | 16.2 | 0.15 | 0.9 | 0.35 | 2.2 |
| Serum | 25.0 | 0.23 | 0.9 | 0.41 | 2.2 |
# b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Linearity studies were carried out in accordance with CLSI EP06-A. Linearity was evaluated using the RX Daytona Plus and 11 samples with concentrations ranging from 0.2 to $26.3\mathrm{mg / dL}$ using two lots of reagents. The samples were equally spaced in concentration and prepared by combining a pooled high human serum sample and pooled low human serum sample (diluted to $0.2\mathrm{mg / dl}$ with $0.9\%$ saline). Each concentration level was run in replicates of five. Both reagent lots yielded similar results. The results from one representative lot are summarized below.
A linear regression fit between the expected concentration by dilution and observed mean concentration was the same or better than a second or third order polynomial fit. At each level, the mean observed concentration was within $\pm 5\%$ of the expected concentration (based on dilution).
The linear regression equation was: $y = 1.02x + 0.01$ and $r = 0.9999$ .
The reportable range of the candidate device is $0.2\mathrm{mg / dl}$ to $26.3\mathrm{mg / dL}$ .
{5}
6
Automatic Dilution:
The Rx Daytona Plus analyser has an auto-dilution feature. When a total bilirubin concentration exceeds the upper end of the reportable range of 26.3 mg/dl, the result is flagged, and the sample is diluted with saline and re-run by the instrument. The subsequent result is multiplied by the dilution factor.
A dilution study using a 1: 6 dilution ratio was performed against manual dilution, and the results supported the sponsor’s claim that the instrument could automatically dilute the sample.
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
Traceability:
The controls and calibrators to be used with this assay are manufactured by Randox Laboratories. The Randox Calibration Serum Level 3 has previously been cleared under k053153.
Randox Calibration Serum Level 3 is traceable to NIST SRM 916(a).
Stability:
Sponsor provided real time stability study protocol and acceptance criteria, and these were found acceptable. The reagent has been evaluated for shelf-life and open on-board stability. When stored un-opened at 2-8 °C the assay reagent is stable until the expiration date and has a shelf life of 24 months from the date of manufacture. When stored on the RX Daytona Plus instrument, the open on-board stability is 28 days.
d. Detection limit:
Detection limit studies were carried out in accordance with CLSI EP17-A2.
Limit of Blank (LoB), Limit of Detection (LoD) and Limit of Quantification (LoQ) determinations were performed using two lots of reagents, tested by two operators, on one RX Daytona Plus system.
The LoB was based on 60 replicates of an artificial serum matrix with no bilirubin added. LoB was derived using the non-parametric approach, and where the value was derived from the 95th percentile of all values.
The LoD was determined using four low level diluted serum sample pools in 20 replicates per run for each day across 3 days for a total of 60 measurements at each level.
The LoQ was measured using four diluted patient serum sample pools in 12 replicates
{6}
across five days yielding a total of 60 results. The LoQ was determined by the lowest total bilirubin concentration at which the imprecision < 20% CV.
Both reagent lots yielded similar results. The results from one representative lot (with the highest values are summarized below.
| LoB | 0.06 mg/dL |
| --- | --- |
| LoD | 0.075 mg/dL |
| LoQ | 0.211 mg/dL |
The total bilirubin assay has a claimed measuring range of 0.2 to 26.3 mg/dL.
e. Analytical specificity:
Interference studies were carried out in accordance with CLSI guideline EP7-A2.
The interference study was carried out using two concentration levels of 1.0 mg/dL and 15 mg/dL total bilirubin. These were prepared by spiking unconjugated bilirubin into pooled, stripped serum. The pooled samples were then aliquoted into 3 separate samples; one sample with high level of interferent, one sample with normal level of interferent, and sample was spiked with a diluent without the interferent as control. All the samples were evaluated on the RX Daytona Plus. The samples were evaluated in replicates of 10.
Sponsor defined no significant interference as a difference of <10% between the measured concentration from spiked pool sample to the match sample with no interferent (control).
The total bilirubin assay showed no significant interference with the following:
| Substance | Highest Concentration Tested at which no significant Interference Observed |
| --- | --- |
| Hemoglobin | 1000 mg/dL |
| Triglycerides | 2000 mg/dL |
| Intralipid® | 1000 mg/dL |
| Ascorbic Acid | 25 mg/dL |
f. Assay cut-off:
Not applicable.
{7}
8
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
Method comparison studies were carried out in accordance with CLSI guideline EP9-A2.
The comparative method was the predicate device – Siemens ADVIA Total Bilirubin 2, tested on the Siemens ADVIA 1650 analyzer. For the candidate device, the testing was conducted using the RX Daytona Plus analyzer. The method comparison used 106 samples spanning the concentration range from 0.2 to 26.9 mg/dL using 2 lots of reagent. The samples were taken from banked collections and comprised 96 unaltered patient serum samples and 10 spiked serum samples. All samples were run in singlicate. The data was analyzed by linear least square regression. Both reagent lots yielded similar results. The results from one representative lot are summarized below.
| Linear regression equation | y = 1.02x - 0.02 |
| --- | --- |
| Correlation Coefficient | 0.9999 |
| 95% Confidence Interval of Slope | 1.01 to 1.02 |
| 95% Confidence Interval of Intercept | -0.05 to 0.01 |
b. Matrix comparison:
Matrix comparison for the Total Bilirubin assay was assessed for two lots of reagents and using the RX Daytona Plus system.
Serum and lithium heparin plasma patient samples were drawn in matched pairs. 40 patient sample pairs were analyzed spanning the concentration range 0.2 to 23.5 mg/dL. The samples comprised 35 patient serum samples and 5 spiked serum samples. Each sample was tested in singlicate.
Both lots of reagents yielded similar results. Linear regression analysis, from a representative lot, yielded the following results:
| Regression Equation | y = 0.99x + 0.04 |
| --- | --- |
| Correlation Coefficient | 0.999 |
| 95% Confidence Interval of Slope | 0.98 to 0.99 |
| 95% Confidence Interval of Intercept | 0.01 to 0.07 |
Based on the study results, sponsor claimed that lithium heparin plasma sample is an acceptable sample type for the candidate device.
{8}
9
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable.
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
Not applicable.
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
Reference range: Adult: 0.3 – 1.2 mg/dL
The reported reference range is from: WuAHB. Tietz Clinical Guide to Laboratory Tests, 4th edition, Saunders Elsevier, St. Louis, MO: 2006:316.
The reference range for Total Bilirubin was verified using CLSI guideline C28-A3 by conducting a small study using human serum samples from 30 healthy donors. These were tested in singlicate on the RX Daytona Plus. Adults ranging in ages from 22 to 53 were tested. Of these, 19 were female and 11 male. The lowest result was 0.2 and highest result was 1.1 mg/dL. A Dixon test was used to mathematically check for outliers - none were found.
All results from the 30 healthy donors were found to be within the reported reference range.
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.
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.