K242872 · Id-Fish Technology, Inc. · LSR · Jun 12, 2025 · Microbiology
Device Facts
Record ID
K242872
Device Name
iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit
Applicant
Id-Fish Technology, Inc.
Product Code
LSR · Microbiology
Decision Date
Jun 12, 2025
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.3830
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The iDart™ Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is an immunoblot assay intended for the in vitro qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. The iDart™ Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is intended to detect antibodies to Lyme Screen Antigen (LSA) and multiple other B. burgdorferi antigens following a modified two-tier test methodology. Positive results from the iDart™ Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit are supportive evidence for the presence of antibodies and exposure to B. burgdorferi. Negative results do not preclude infection with B. burgdorferi. iDart™ Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is intended to aid in the diagnosis of Lyme disease and the test kit should only be used on samples from patients with clinical history, signs and symptoms consistent with Lyme disease. The iDart™ Lyme IgM Immunoblot Kit is not intended as a screen for asymptomatic patients. Test results are to be used in conjunction with information obtained from the patient's clinical evaluation and other diagnostic procedures.
Device Story
The iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is a line immunoblot assay for qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. Recombinant Borrelia proteins (LSA, C10, P93, P41, P39, P34, P31, P23) are sprayed onto nitrocellulose strips. Patient serum is incubated with the strips; antibodies bind to specific antigens. After washing, strips are incubated with anti-human IgM conjugated with Alkaline Phosphatase. Visualization occurs via BCIP/NBT substrate, forming a bluish-purple reaction product at antigen-antibody binding sites. The test is performed in a professional laboratory setting. Results are interpreted manually by observing band patterns. The device aids clinicians in diagnosing Lyme disease by providing supportive evidence of exposure to B. burgdorferi in symptomatic patients, used in conjunction with clinical evaluation and other diagnostic procedures.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical performance evaluated using 997 prospectively collected serum samples compared against standard two-tier testing (STTT). Results showed 90.91% PPA (95% CI: 81.55%–95.77%) and 98.07% NPA (95% CI: 96.96%–98.77%). Additional testing on a 258-sample CDC pre-marketing panel demonstrated sensitivity of 65.8% (vs 55.7% for STTT) and high agreement with healthy/disease controls. Reproducibility study across 3 sites, 6 operators, and 5 days showed 100% agreement.
Technological Characteristics
Line immunoblot assay using recombinant Borrelia proteins (LSA, C10, P93, P41, P39, P34, P31, P23) on nitrocellulose membrane. Detection via anti-human IgM-Alkaline Phosphatase conjugate and BCIP/NBT substrate. Manual interpretation of band patterns. Professional use only.
Indications for Use
Indicated for in vitro qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum from symptomatic patients with clinical history, signs, and symptoms consistent with Lyme disease. Not for use as a screen for asymptomatic patients.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
Treponema pallidum treponemal test reagents are devices that consist of the antigens, antisera and all control reagents (standardized reagents with which test results are compared) which are derived from treponemal sources and that are used in the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test (FTA-ABS), the Treponema pallidum immobilization test (T.P.I.), and other treponemal tests used to identify antibodies to Treponema pallidum directly from infecting treponemal organisms in serum. The identification aids in the diagnosis of syphilis caused by bacteria belonging to the genus Treponema and provides epidemiological information on syphilis.
Predicate Devices
Viramed Borrelia All-In-One ViraChip Test Kit (K220016)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
FDA
U.S. FOOD & DRUG
ADMINISTRATION
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
ASSAY ONLY
## I Background Information:
A 510(k) Number
K242872
B Applicant
ID-FISH Technology, Inc.
C Proprietary and Established Names
iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit
D Regulatory Information
| Product Code(s) | Classification | Regulation Section | Panel |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| LSR | Class II | 21 CFR 866.3830 - Treponema Pallidum
Treponemal Test Reagents | MI - Microbiology |
## II Submission/Device Overview:
A Purpose for Submission:
To obtain a substantial equivalence determination for the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit for qualitative detection of anti-Borrelia burgdorferi IgM antibodies in human serum.
B Measurand:
Anti-Borrelia burgdorferi IgM antibodies.
C Type of Test:
Immunoblot assay.
## III Intended Use/Indications for Use:
A Intended Use(s):
See Indications for Use below.
Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
www.fda.gov
{1}
K242872 - Page 2 of 10
# B Indication(s) for Use:
The iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is an immunoblot assay intended for the in vitro qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to *Borrelia burgdorferi* in human serum. The iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is intended to detect antibodies to Lyme Screen Antigen (LSA) and multiple other *B. burgdorferi* antigens following a modified two-tier test methodology. Positive results from the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit are supportive evidence for the presence of antibodies and exposure to *B. burgdorferi*. Negative results do not preclude infection with *B. burgdorferi*. iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is intended to aid in the diagnosis of Lyme disease and the test kit should only be used on samples from patients with clinical history, signs and symptoms consistent with Lyme disease. The iDart Lyme IgM Immunoblot Kit is not intended as a screen for asymptomatic patients.
Test results are to be used in conjunction with information obtained from the patient's clinical evaluation and other diagnostic procedures.
# C Special Conditions for Use Statement(s):
Rx - For Prescription Use Only
# D Special Instrument Requirements:
Not Applicable
# IV Device/System Characteristics:
# A Device Description:
The iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot is a line immunoblot assay. Antigenic proteins specific for different *Borrelia* species that cause Lyme Disease are produced by recombinant DNA technology in *Escherichia coli*. The purified proteins are applied as discrete lines on a nitrocellulose membrane (test strip) along with two control proteins in the following order: Control 1 (C1: IgG/IgM), Control 2 (C2: Protein L), P93, P41, P39, P23, P31, P34, and LSA (a chimeric VlsE peptide termed the Lyme Screening Antigen).

Figure 1. Schematic of the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot strip.
# B Principle of Operation:
During the test procedure, human serum is added to the test strip. Antibodies to *Borrelia burgdorferi*, if present, will bind to antigen lines on the test strip. After removing serum and unbound antibodies by washing, the test strip is incubated with alkaline phosphatase conjugated anti-human IgM antibody for detection of anti-*Borrelia burgdorferi* IgM antibodies in the patient sample.
After removing the alkaline phosphatase conjugated antibody by washing, the antigen-antibody complex is visualized as bands on the test strip by adding the alkaline phosphatase substrate 5-
{2}
Bromo, 4-chloro, 3-indolylphosphate (BCIP) and nitro blue tetrazolium (NBT) to form a blue-purple precipitate on the detected band(s). The reaction stops by washing the test strip with distilled or deionized water. A test strip reading guide included with the kit shows the location of specific antigens in the test strip. Every test strip has two functional control bands (C1 and C2). The test strip is only valid when both controls bands are visible after completion of the test. Any band found having a visual intensity equal to or greater than the C2 control band intensity is considered as a positive band.
## Reagent and Materials
The following reagents are provided as part of the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit.
Table 1. iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit, 50 assays per kit.
| Component | Packaging | Volume/ Quantity | Part No. |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot strips | 50ml tube | 50 strips | LMIBS03 |
| IB Sample diluent | 60ml bottle | 55ml | IBSD03 |
| IB Wash Buffer | 60ml bottle | 60ml | IBWB03 |
| Milk powder | 0.5ml microcentrifuge tube | 0.75g | Milk03 |
| Lyme IgM IB Conjugate | 60ml bottle | 60ml | LMIBC03 |
| IB Phosphatase Substrate | 60ml bottle | 60ml | IBPS03 |
| LYME IgM IB Positive Control | 0.5ml microcentrifuge tube | 120μl | LMIBP03 |
| LYME IgM IB Negative Control | 0.5ml microcentrifuge tube | 120μl | LMIBN03 |
| LYME IgM IB Package Insert | Paper | 1 each | LMIBPI |
| LYME IgM IB Reading Guide | Laminated paper | 1 each | LMIBRG |
The following are materials and reagents required but not provided with the kit:
i. ImmunoBlot Incubation Tray (may be purchased from ID-FISH Technologies, Inc.)
ii. Pipettor 10, 200, and 1000μl
iii. Platform Rocker
## Quality Controls
Control material should be tested in accordance with the guidelines or requirements of local, state, and/or federal regulations or accrediting organizations. To monitor the assay, reagent performance and day-to-day variation, positive controls for anti-Borrelia antibodies along with a negative control must be tested with each run.
1. All reportable bands should be present on positive control strip. If any of the reportable bands are absent on positive control, the test must be repeated.
2. No test bands are present. If the negative control strip shows 2 or more reportable bands with intensity equal to or greater than C2 control band, the test must be repeated.
3. C1 and C2 control bands must show in every test strip.
## Interpretation of Results
A test strip result is valid only if both internal controls bands (C1 and C2) are clearly visible, and the negative and positive serum controls results are comparable to the pre-established profiles. Within each strip, C2 is the benchmark calibrator for test bands. The intensity of the bands on the sample test strip is then scored by comparing the intensity of the reportable bands to the intensity of C2 band within the same strip.
K242872 - Page 3 of 10
{3}
Table 2. Scoring of Protein bands intensity.
| Band Intensity | Indicated by |
| --- | --- |
| - | No band detected |
| +/- = I | A mark on the strip, band intensity < C2 control band |
| + | A definite line or band intensity ≥ to C2 control band |
Table 3. Interpretation of results for iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot test.
| Test Result | Interpretation |
| --- | --- |
| Positive | Positive or indetermined LSA band AND one or more from at least TWO of the following groups are present –P41, P39, P23, P31, and P34; |
| Negative | If the band pattern does not meet the positive criteria. |
# V Substantial Equivalence Information:
A Predicate Device Name(s):
Viramed Borrela All-In-One ViraChip Test Kit
B Predicate 510(k) Number(s):
K220016
C Comparison with Predicate(s):
| Device & Predicate Device(s): | K242872 | K220016 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Device Trade Name | iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit | Viramed Borrelia All-In-One ViraChip Test Kit |
| General Device Characteristic Similarities | | |
| Intended Use/Indications For Use | The iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is an immunoblot assay intended for the in vitro qualitative detection of IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. The iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is intended to detect antibodies to Lyme Screen Antigen (LSA) and multiple other B. burgdorferi antigens following a modified two-tier test methodology. Positive results from the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit are supportive evidence for the presence of antibodies and exposure to B. burgdorferi. Negative results do not preclude infection with B. burgdorferi. iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit is intended to aid in the diagnosis of Lyme disease and the test kit should | The Viramed Biotech AG Borrelia All-In-One ViraChip is an in vitro qualitative microarray assay for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi in human serum. The assay is intended for testing serum samples from symptomatic patients or those suspected of Lyme Disease. It is intended to detect antibodies to VlsE and multiple other B. burgdorferi antigens following a modified two-tier test methodology. Positive results from the Viramed Biotech AG Borrelia All-In-One ViraChip are supportive evidence for the presence of antibodies and exposure to B. burgdorferi, the causative agent for Lyme disease. Negative results do not preclude infection with B. burgdorferi. Test |
K242872 - Page 4 of 10
{4}
| | only be used on samples from patients with clinical history, signs and symptoms consistent with Lyme disease. The iDart Lyme IgM Immunoblot Kit is not intended as a screen for asymptomatic patients. Test results are to be used in conjunction with information obtained from the patient’s clinical evaluation and other diagnostic procedures. | results are to be used in conjunction with information obtained from the patient’s clinical evaluation and other diagnostic procedures as an aid in diagnosis of Lyme disease. The Viramed Biotech AG Borrelia All-In-One ViraChip Test must be used with a ViraChip Reader and the ViraChip Software. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sample Type | Same | Serum |
| Controls | Same | Positive Control Serum, Negative Control Serum |
| Assay Type | Same | Qualitative |
| General Device Characteristic Differences | | |
| Antibodies Detected | IgM | IgM and IgG |
| Antigens | P41, P39, P23, P31, P34, and LSA (a chimeric VlsE peptide) | VlsE, 93 kD, 58 kD, 45kD, 39 kD, 30 kD, 23kD, 21 kD, 19 kD, 18kD, and 17 kD antigens of B. burgdorferi |
| Assay Technology | ImmunoAssay | Antigen coated wells (Microarrays) |
| Reagents | Sample diluent, Wash Buffer, Milk powder, Conjugate Buffer, Substrate solution | 10X Wash Buffer, Sample Buffer, Chromogen/Substrate Solution |
| Sample volume | 20 μL neat serum in 1000 ml sample diluent | Samples diluted 1:76 and 100 μL added per well |
| Instrumentation | Manual | Automated with ViraChip Reader |
VI Standards/Guidance Documents Referenced:
Establishing the Performance Characteristics of in Vitro Diagnostic Devices for the Detection of Antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi. Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
VII Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
A Analytical Performance:
1. Precision/Reproducibility: The reproducibility of the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit was evaluated in a study that included six anti-Borrelia IgM human serum samples at different analyte levels: high positive, two moderate positive, one low positive, one high negative, and one negative samples. The study was conducted across three sites, each with two operators over five non-consecutive days. On each of the five days, each operator performed one run, and each run included three replicates per sample. This generated a total of 90 replicates per sample (3 sites x 2 operators x 3 replicates x 5 days). There was 100% agreement on all bands on all runs, days, and operators at all three sites.
K242872 - Page 5 of 10
{5}
Table 4. iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit Reproducibility Study Results (all sites)
| Sample # | Sample Type | IgM | # of Samples (+) | Expected Result | % agreement with expected result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| MA | High Positive | P | 90/90 | P | 100% |
| MB | Moderate Positive | P | 90/90 | P | 100% |
| MC | Moderate Positive | P | 90/90 | P | 100% |
| MD | Low Positive | P | 90/90 | P | 100% |
| ME | High Negative | N | 0/90 | N | 100% |
| MF | Negative | N | 0/90 | N | 100% |
2. Linearity:
Not Applicable
3. Analytical Specificity/Interference:
Cross-Reactivity: Potential cross-reactivity of the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit was evaluated in a study that tested left-over patient sera containing antibodies to potentially cross-reacting conditions (e.g., viral and bacterial infections as well as autoimmune disorders). The table below summarizes the potential cross-reactant and the number of samples per cross-reactant included in the study. Cross-reactivity was observed with samples containing antibodies to *Leptospira* (2/10), mononucleosis (1/15), *H. pylori* (1/9), and parvovirus-19 (1/10).
Table 5. Cross-Reactivity Study Results for iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit.
| Source | Disease State | N (243) | IgM Positive | % Cross-reactivity |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CDC | Fibromyalgia | 15 | 0 | 0% |
| | Mononucleosis | 15 | 1 | 6.67% |
| | Multiple sclerosis | 15 | 0 | 0% |
| | Rheumatoid arthritis | 11 | 0 | 0% |
| | Severe periodontitis | 14 | 0 | 0% |
| | Syphilis | 14 | 0 | 0% |
| | Leptospira | 10 | 2* | 20.00%* |
| IgeneX, Inc. | Rheumatoid Factor | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| | ANA | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| | Bartonella | 11 | 0 | 0% |
| | Bartonella & Anaplasma | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| | Bartonella &TBRF Borrelia | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| | Babesiosis | 8 | 0 | 0% |
| | Babesiosis & Tick-Borne Relapsing Fever | 2 | 0 | 0% |
| | Babesiosis & Rickettsiosis | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| | Tick Borne Relapsing Fever | 10 | 0 | 0% |
| | Tick-Borne Relapsing Fever & Anaplasma | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| | Tick-Borne Relapsing Fever & Ehrlichiosis | 1 | 0 | 0% |
K242872 - Page 6 of 10
{6}
| | Tick-Borne Relapsing Fever & Rickettsia | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Anaplasmosis | 8 | 0 | 0% |
| | Anaplasmosis & Ehrlichiosis | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| | Ehrlichiosis | 4 | 0 | 0% |
| | Rickettsiosis | 11 | 0 | 0% |
| New York Biologics (NY) | HIV | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| | HCV | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| | HSV1 | 7 | 0 | 0% |
| | CMV | 11 | 0 | 0% |
| | EBV | 9 | 0 | 0% |
| Kamineni Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd, | Pregnant women | 11 | 0 | 0% |
| Hyderabad (India) | H. pylori | 9 | 1 | 11.11% |
| Warde Medical Laboratory (MI) | Parvovirus-19 | 10 | 1 | 10.00% |
| | Varicella-zoster virus | 10 | 0 | 0% |
| False Positive | | | 5 | |
| Agreement | | | 97.94% | |
* Two Leptospira samples positive by iDart Lyme IgM testing were also positive for IgM with STTT.
Endogenous Interference: The potential interfering effect of endogenous substances in patient samples when using the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot was evaluated using one high positive, one moderate positive, and one negative Borrelia IgM samples. Samples were spiked with the endogenous substances at the final concentrations listed in the table below. No interference effect was observed in the tested samples.
Table 6. Endogenous Interference substances included in the study.
| Endogenous Substance | Final Concentration |
| --- | --- |
| Bilirubin | 1 mg/dL |
| | 15 mg/dL |
| Albumin | 3.5 g/dL |
| | 5 g/dL |
| Cholesterol | 150 mg/dL |
| | 250 mg/dL |
| Triglycerides | 150 mg/dL |
| | 500 mg/dL |
| Hemoglobin | 10 g/dL |
| | 20 g/dL |
4. Assay Reportable Range: Not Applicable
5. Traceability, Stability, Expected Values (Controls, Calibrators, or Methods):
Fresh versus Frozen Sample Stability: This study was conducted to support the use of frozen samples in the clinical and analytical validation studies. To evaluate the performance of the iDart IgM ImmunoBlot Kit when using fresh and frozen samples, a total of 63 decoded left-
K242872 - Page 7 of 10
{7}
over patient serum samples were tested fresh (stored at 2° – 8°C) and after freezing at -20°C for at least 2 days, and not more than 22 days. All IgM positive samples (N=21) remained positive, and all IgM negative samples (N=42) remained negative when tested with the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit fresh and after storage at -20°C.
6. Detection Limit: Not Applicable
7. Assay Cut-Off: Not Applicable
## B Comparison Studies:
1. Method Comparison with Predicate Device:
The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical performance of the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot kit when compared to an FDA-cleared EIA and immunoblot for detection of antibodies to B. burgdorferi following as part of the standard two-tier test (STTT) methodology. All samples were tested using the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit and the STTT comparator.
A total of 997 serum samples were procured from a vendor and tested at three U.S. sites. Samples were collected in 2024 from different geographic regions in the U.S. All study samples were non-selected, left-over samples collected from patients with signs and symptoms consistent with Lyme disease that were prescribed a Lyme test. The table below summarizes the distribution of samples per testing site.
Table 7: Sample distribution by clinical site and cohort.
| Testing Site | Number of Samples | Sample Type | Vendors Providing Samples |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Site 1 | 304 | Prospective | IGeneX Inc. |
| Site 2 | 357 | Prospective | |
| Site 3 | 336 | Prospective | |
| Total | 997 | | |
Additionally, the CDC Premarket panel containing 258 samples was also evaluated. This panel contains samples collected from patients diagnosed with Lyme Disease at different stages (Stages 1, 2, and 3), Lyme disease look-like infections (infectious mononucleosis, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia and severe periodontitis), and from healthy controls living in both endemic and non-endemic regions of Lyme disease.
## Study Results
## Clinical samples
All 997 samples were included in the performance calculations. The iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit Positive Percent Agreement (PPA) and Negative Percent Agreement (NPA) together with the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated against the comparator STTT. The table below summarizes the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit results.
K242872 - Page 8 of 10
{8}
Table 8. iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit Performance (N=997)
| | STTT | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Positive (+) | Negative (-) |
| iDart Lyme IgG ImmunoBlot | Positive (+) | 60 | 18 |
| | Negative (-) | 6 | 913 |
| | Total | 66 | 931 |
| | PPA (95% CI) | 90.91% (81.55% – 95.77%) | |
| | NPA (95% CI) | 98.07% (96.96% – 98.77%) | |
CDC Premarket Panel
The table below summarizes the results of the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit when testing samples from the CDC Premarket panel.
Table 9. CDC Premarket Panel: iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit Performance in Lyme Disease Samples.
| Disease | Stage I | | Stage II | | Stage III | | Overall | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| N | 50 | | 9 | | 20 | | 79 | |
| Test | iDart | STTT | iDart | STTT | iDart | STTT | iDart | STTT |
| Positive | 33 | 28 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 9 | 52 | 44 |
| Negative | 17 | 22 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 27 | 35 |
| Agreement | 66.0% | 56.0% | 88.9% | 77.8% | 55.0% | 45.0% | 65.8% | 55.7% |
Table 10: CDC Premarket Panel: iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit performance in control samples.
| | Healthy Controls | | Disease Controls | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| N | 95 | | 84 | |
| Test | iDart | STTT | iDart | STTT |
| Positive | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Negative | 93 | 94 | 83 | 81 |
| Agreement | 97.9% | 98.9% | 98.8% | 96.4% |
2. Matrix Comparison: Not Applicable
C Clinical Studies:
1. Clinical Sensitivity: Not Applicable
2. Clinical Specificity: Not Applicable
3. Other Clinical Supportive Data (When 1. and 2. Are Not Applicable): Not Applicable
D Clinical Cut-Off: Not Applicable
K242872 - Page 9 of 10
{9}
K242872 - Page 10 of 10
# E Expected Values/Reference Range:
Well-characterized serum samples collected from apparent healthy individuals from both endemic and non-endemic areas for Lyme Disease were tested with the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit following the instructions for use. Samples were provided by the CDC and the Bay Area Lyme foundation. Tables below summarize the performance of the device when testing samples from endemic and non-endemic areas respectively. One sample out of 177 (0.56%) tested samples from endemic areas was positive for IgM, using the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit. Additionally, one sample out of 127 (0.79%) tested samples from non-endemic areas was positive for IgM using the iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot Kit.
Table 11: iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot results for samples collected from healthy individuals in endemic areas.
| Sample Source | N | IgM | % Positive |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CDC | 50 | 1 | 2.00% |
| Bay Area Lyme Foundation (NY, MA, WI) | 127 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Total | 177 | 1 | 0.56% |
| Agreement | | 99.44% | |
Table 12: iDart Lyme IgM ImmunoBlot results for samples collected from healthy individuals in non-endemic areas.
| Sample Source | N | IgM | % Positive |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CDC | 45 | 1 | 2.22% |
| IGeneX, Inc. | 82 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Total | 127 | 1 | 0.79% |
| Agreement | | 99.21% | |
# VIII Proposed Labeling:
The labeling supports the finding of substantial equivalence for this device.
# IX Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
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.