K981208 · Ramco Laboratories, Inc. · JNM · Oct 21, 1998 · Immunology
Device Facts
Record ID
K981208
Device Name
TFR
Applicant
Ramco Laboratories, Inc.
Product Code
JNM · Immunology
Decision Date
Oct 21, 1998
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.5880
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The TfR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay for quantifying the concentration of transferrin receptor in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia, particularly in the presence of other disease states.
Device Story
TfR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay (double antibody sandwich method) for quantifying serum transferrin receptor (STR) in human serum or plasma. Process: patient samples diluted in buffer; pipetted into microwells pre-coated with polyclonal antibody to transferrin receptor; horseradish peroxidase (HRP) conjugated antibody added; incubation allows STR binding to capture and detection antibodies. Unbound material washed away; enzyme substrate added; stop solution added; intensity of yellow product measured via microplate reader at 450nm. Optical density is directly proportional to STR concentration; concentration determined by comparing sample optical density against a standard curve generated from provided STR standards. Used in clinical laboratory settings by trained personnel to aid in diagnosing iron deficiency anemia, especially when other disease states complicate diagnosis. Results assist clinicians in differentiating iron deficiency anemia from anemia of chronic disease, potentially guiding therapeutic decisions.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical evaluation compared TfR assay to predicate (QSI) using 283 samples (38 IDA, 175 ACD, 70 other). Linear regression of 155 paired samples yielded R2 of 88.2%. In IDA samples, TfR showed 78.9% agreement with clinical definition vs 78.3% for QSI. In ACD samples, TfR showed 82.9% agreement vs 68.1% for QSI. When results were refined by ferritin concurrence, TfR and QSI showed 100% agreement in IDA (n=17) and 98.8% in ACD (n=80). Overall, TfR and QSI results matched in 90.3% of all samples.
Technological Characteristics
In vitro enzyme immunoassay; double antibody sandwich method. Uses polyclonal capture antibody and monoclonal HRP-conjugated detection antibody. Calibrated using human placenta-derived transferrin receptor standards. Requires microplate reader with 450nm filter. Sample dilution 100:1. Single-stage assay format.
Indications for Use
Indicated for quantifying transferrin receptor in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia, including in patients with other concurrent disease states.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A transferrin immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the transferrin (an iron-binding and transporting serum protein) in serum, plasma, and other body fluids. Measurement of transferrin levels aids in the diagnosis of malnutrition, acute inflammation, infection, and red blood cell disorders, such as iron deficiency anemia.
{0}------------------------------------------------
10/21/98
Image /page/0/Picture/1 description: The image shows the logo and contact information for Ramco Laboratories Inc. The address is 4507 Mt. Vernon, Houston, Texas 77006. The phone number is (713) 526-9677, and the toll-free number is 1-800-231-6238. The fax number is 713-526-1528, and they are available 24 hours.
## 510(k) SUMMARY
This summary of 510(k) safety and effectiveness information is being submitted in accordance with the requirements of SMDA 1990 and 21 CFR 807.92
The assigned 510(k) number is: __ 981208
| Submitter: | Ramco Laboratories, Inc.<br>4507 Mt. Vernon<br>Houston, TX 77006 |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Phone #:<br>Fax #: | (713) 526-9677<br>(713) 526-1528 |
| Contact Person: | Jeffrey B. Grubb, President |
| Date Prepared: | March 27, 1998 |
| Device Name: | Transferrin Receptor Assay |
| Trade Name: | <i>TfR</i> |
| Common Name: | TfR Assay |
| Classification Name: | sTfR Immunological Test System |
| Predicate Device Name: | Quantikine IVD sTfR Immunoassay<br>R&D Systems, Inc.<br>614 McKinley Place N.E.<br>Minneapolis, MN 55413<br>510(k) #K970718 |
The TFR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay based upon the double antibody sandwich method. Plasma or serum samples are diluted in buffer and pipetted into microwells pre-coated with polyclonal antibody to transferrin receptor. Horseradish peroxidase conjugated antibody specific for serum transferrin receptor (STR) is added to the wells and incubated. During this incubation, the STR binds to the polyclonal antibodies adsorbed to the wells and the HRP-conjugated second antibodies bind to the captured STR.
{1}------------------------------------------------
Any unbound STR and excess HRP-conjugate are washed from the wells. Enzyme substrate is added to the wells and allowed to incubate, a stop solution is then added to stop the reaction and the intensity of the yellow product is measured in a microplate reader. The optical density of the resulting solution is directly proportional to the concentration of the STR in the standard samples. A standard curve is generated from the STR standards provided in the assay and the concentration of STR in the unknown sample is determined by comparing the unknown's optical density reading with the standard curve graph.
The TFR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay for quantifying the concentration of transferrin receptor in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia, particularly in the presence of other disease states.
Ramco Laboratories, Inc. is claiming substantial equivalence of its TFR assay the R&D Systems (Minneapolis, Minnesota) Quantikine IVD sTfR Immunoassay ("QSI") which obtained 510(k) clearance on May 27, 1997 (K970718, Class II).
Both TFR and OSI's intended use is to quantitatively determine the level of transferrin receptor in human serum or plasma to aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia. Both are based on the microplate sandwich enzyme immunoassay technique, use calibrators to generate a log-log curve from which the quantity of an unknown sample is read, use a monoclonal transferrin antibody conjugated to horseradish peroxidase, use a microplate reader with a 450nm filter to read the results, and supply controls which, like the unknown samples, must be diluted prior to use. Finally, both assays offer a prescribed normal range, the upper limit of which is the indicator for the presence of iron deficiency anemia.
Both TFR and OSI use a monoclonal antibody in its conjugate. However, TFR uses a polyclonal transferrin receptor antibody to coat the microplate, making it a polyclonalmonoclonal assay, while QSI uses a monoclonal antibody to coat the plate making it a double monoclonal. TFR provides 7 standards consisting of TFR, isolated from human placenta, contained in a phosphate buffer with BSA and normal rabbit serum and calibrated in ne/ml while QSI provides 6 standards, consisting of human serum transferrin receptor, contained in buffered animal serum and calibrated in nmol/L. The assay results are reported in ug/ml in the TFR assay compared to nmol/L for OSI. Samples and controls are diluted 100:1 prior to use in the 7fR assay compared to 50:1 for QSI. Finally, TFR is a single-stage compared to QSI which is a two-stage assay.
Over an 18 month period of time, patient samples were collected. These samples were segregated into one of three categories: 1) Anemia of Chronic Disease ("ACD"), clinically defined as Serum Iron < 60, Iron Binding Capacity < 350 and Hemoglobin < 12; 2) Iron Deficiency Anemia ("IDA"), clinically defined as Serum Iron < 60, Iron Binding Capacity > 350 and Hemoglobin < 12; and 3) neither IDA nor ACD, samples that had either Serum Iron > 60 or Hemoglobin > 12.
Of the above samples, TFR results were obtained for 38 of the IDA, 175 of the ACD, and 70 of the "Neither IDA nor ACD" samples (283 total), while QSI results were obtained for 23 of the IDA, 119 of the IDA and 13 of the "Neither IDA nor ACD" samples (155 total).
{2}------------------------------------------------
Performing a linear regression of all values for the 155 samples for which a TFR and OSI value has been obtained yields an R2 of 88.2% (See Table 17).
Of the 38 IDA samples, QSI results were obtained for 23. IffR is in agreement (>8.3ug/ml) with the clinical definition of IDA 30 out of 38 times or 78.9% while QSI is in agreement with the clinical definition 18 out of 23 times or 78.3%. Of these 23 samples, TfR delivered the same individual result as OSI for 22 out of 23 samples.
The IDA population was further refined to those samples where QSI and ferritin results concurred (STR > 28.1 and ferritin < 30). This reduced the population to 17 samples. Of these 17 samples, TFR concurred with the individual QSI results 17 out of 17 times or 100.0% .
Of the 175 ACD samples, QSI results were obtained for 119. TfR is in agreement ( < 8.3 ug/ml) with the clinical definition of ACD 145 out of 175 times or 82.9% while OSI is in agreement with the clinical definition 81 out of 119 times or 68.1%. Of these 119 samples, TfR delivered the same individual result as OSI.
The ACD population was further refined to those samples where OSI and ferritin results concurred (STR < 28.1 and ferritin > 30). This reduced the population to 80 samples. Of these 80 samples, TFR concurred with the individual OSI results 79 out of 80 times or 98.8%.
Of the 70 "Neither IDA nor ACD" samples. OSI results were obtained for 13. Of these 13 samples, TFR delivered the same individual result as OSI 12 out of 13 times or 92.3%
When all samples results are taken as a whole, TFR delivered the same individual result as QSI 140 out of 155 times or 90.3%. When only those cases are used where OSI and ferritin are in agreement. TFR and OSI give the same result 96 out of 97 times or 98.97%.
{3}------------------------------------------------
## DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
OCT 27 1998
Food and Drug Administration 2098 Gaither Road Rockville MD 20850
Mr. Jeffrey B. Grubb President Ramco Laboratories, Inc. 4507 Mt. Vernon 77006 Houston, Texas
- Re: K981208/S1 Trade Name: ની ને જ II Requlatory Class: Product Code: JNM Dated: July 29, 1998 Received: July 31, 1998
Dear Mr. Grubb:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) notification of intent to market the device referenced above and we have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (Premarket Approval), it may be subject to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Requlations, Title 21, Parts 800 A substantially equivalent determination assumes compliance to 895. with the Current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements, as set forth in the Quality System Regulation (QS) for Medical Devices: General regulation (21 CFR Part 820) and that, through periodic QS inspections, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will verify such Failure to comply with the GMP regulation may result in assumptions. regulatory action. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register. Please note: this response to your premarket notification submission does not affect any obligation you might have under sections 531 through 542 of the Act for devices under the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions, or other Federal laws or regulations.
Image /page/3/Picture/9 description: The image is a black and white logo for the Department of Health & Human Services - USA. The logo features a stylized image of an eagle with its wings spread, and the text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - USA" is arranged in a circular pattern around the eagle. The eagle is composed of three curved lines that form the shape of the bird's body and wings. The text is in all capital letters and is evenly spaced around the circle.
{4}------------------------------------------------
Page 2
This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial in your 510 (x) promodevice to a legally marketed predicate device equiration or your device and thus, permits your device to proceed to the market.
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801 and additionally 809.10 for in vitro regaractic devices), please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4588. Additionally, for questions on the promotion and 394 1500. That would be please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4639. Also, please note the regulation entitled, (301) 391 1009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . be obtained from the Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance at its be extained more (800) 638-2041 or (301) 443-6597, or at its internet address "http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsma/dsmamain.html".
Sincerely yours,
Steven Sutman
Steven I. Gutman, M.D., M.B.A. Director Division of Clinical Laboratory Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{5}------------------------------------------------
## INDICATIONS FOR USE STATEMENT
510(k) Number: K981208
Device Name: IfR
The IJR assay is an in vitro enzyme immunoassay for quantifying Indications for Use: The 1918 assay is an in weeptor in human serum or plasina to aid in the diagnosis of iron deficiency anemia, particularly in the presence of other disease states.
(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE – CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED)
| Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) | |
|--------------------------------------------------------|---------|
| (Division Sign-Off) | |
| Division of Clinical Laboratory Devices | |
| 510(k) Number | K981208 |
| Prescription Use | ✓ |
OR
| Over-The-Counter Use | _____ |
|----------------------|-------|
|----------------------|-------|
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.