Search Results

LANDLEX 402x scooter is intended for an indoor/outdoor scooter that provides transportation for disabled or elderly persons limited to a seated position

The LANDLEX 402x scooter is an indoor/outdoor transportation vehicles which is battery operated The movement of the scooter is controlled by a tiller handle and a thumb operated potentiometer throttle control lever to engage and disengage the scooter motion in both the forward and reverse directions

I am sorry, but based on the provided document, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them.

The document is a 510(k) summary for the LANDLEX 402x scooter, which is a regulatory submission to the FDA. It declares the device's "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices, meaning it claims that it is as safe and effective as existing legally marketed devices.

However, a 510(k) summary does not typically include detailed information about specific acceptance criteria or the studies that demonstrate device performance against those criteria. It focuses on demonstrating equivalence to predicate devices, often by comparing performance specifications (as mentioned in the document "There are minor differences in performance specifications of the scooters, these differences do not alter the intended function and use of the device..."), rather than providing a rigorous independent study with specific acceptance metrics.

Therefore, the requested information, such as a table of acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, and training set details, is not present in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

KYMCO ForU EQ35 scooter is intended for an indoor/outdoor scooter that provides transportation for disabled or elderly persons limited to a seated position.
To provide mobility to disabled or elderly persons limited to a seated position.

The KYMCO ForU EQ35 scooter is an indoor/outdoor transportation vehicles which is battery operated. The movement of the scooter is controlled by a tiller handle and a thumb operated potentiometer throttle control lever to engage and disengage the scooter motion in both the forward and reverse directions.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the KYMCO ForU EQ35 scooter, a motorized three-wheeled vehicle intended for disabled or elderly persons. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than detailed performance studies against specific acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, and ground truth establishment is not present in this document.

Here's an analysis of the available information:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

This information is not provided in the document. The 510(k) summary emphasizes "Substantial equivalence" to predicate devices, noting "minor differences in performance specifications... these differences do not alter the intended function and use of the device, nor do they raise any new questions pertaining to safety or effectiveness." This implies that the device is deemed acceptable if its performance is comparable to the predicate devices and does not introduce new safety or effectiveness concerns, but specific quantitative acceptance criteria or a direct comparison table are not included.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

This information is not provided in the document. The 510(k) summary primarily discusses the description of the device and its predicate devices, not specific test data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This information is not provided in the document. As this is a 510(k) for a mobility scooter, it's unlikely to involve expert-established ground truth in the same way a medical imaging AI would.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not provided in the document.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

This information is not provided in the document. This type of study design is irrelevant for a mobility scooter.

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

This information is not provided in the document. As this is a mechanical device, the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" is not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

This information is not provided in the document. Given the nature of the device (mobility scooter), "ground truth" would likely relate to objective performance metrics (e.g., speed, range, stability, turning radius) measured against product specifications or standards, rather than expert consensus on a diagnosis or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided in the document.

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

This information is not provided in the document.

Summary of what is available in the document regarding acceptance and substantial equivalence:

The document primarily states that the acceptance criteria for market clearance is "substantial equivalence" to legally marketed predicate devices.

The study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria (i.e., substantial equivalence) is implicit in the 510(k) submission itself. The submission provides:

• Predicate devices: AVANTICARE SA4022 (K051538) and LERADO CHINA LIMITED ForU EQ30 (K072630).
• Intended use: Both the subject device and predicate devices are intended for indoor/outdoor transportation for disabled or elderly persons limited to a seated position.
• Device description: The KYMCO ForU EQ35 scooter is described as a battery-operated indoor/outdoor transportation vehicle controlled by a tiller handle and a thumb-operated potentiometer throttle control lever. This aligns with the general description of such devices.
• Comparison statement: The manufacturer asserts that "There are minor differences in performance specifications of the scooters, these differences do not alter the intended function and use of the device, nor do they raise any new questions pertaining to safety or effectiveness." This statement is the core of their argument for substantial equivalence.

While the document does not include a detailed study report with specific measurements, the FDA's clearance (AUG - 4 2008) indicates that the agency reviewed the information provided by KWANG YANG MOTOR CO., LTD. and determined that the KYMCO ForU EQ35 scooter is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices and thus meets the requirements for market clearance under the 510(k) pathway. This regulatory finding serves as the "proof" that the device meets the implicit acceptance criteria of not presenting new safety or effectiveness concerns compared to existing devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LANDLEX S403X scooter is motor driven, indoor and outdoor transportation vehicles with the intended use to provide mobility to disabled or elderly persons limited to a seated position.

The LANDLEX S403X scooter is an indoor/outdoor transportation vehicles which is battery operated. The movement of the scooter is controlled by a tiller handle and a thumb operated potentiometer throttle control lever to engage and disengage the scooter motion in both the forward and reverse directions.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a motorized scooter (LANDLEX S403X). It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that rigorously tests the device's performance against such criteria. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing detailed performance studies with ground truth establishment or expert involvement.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be provided from this document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This document does not list specific acceptance criteria for the device's performance (e.g., speed, range, safety features quantified metrics). It only states "minor differences in performance specifications" between the new device and the predicate. Without explicit acceptance criteria defined and corresponding test results, such a table cannot be constructed.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: No test set or study data is described. The submission relies on a comparison to a predicate device and does not involve a specific test set of patients or conditions.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Since there is no test set or performance study described, there is no mention of experts or ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable as no test set or adjudication process is described.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: This question is related to AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretive devices. The LANDLEX S403X is an electrical scooter and does not involve AI or human readers for interpretation. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant to this device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This device is a motorized scooter, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable as no ground truth is established for a performance study.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device, so there is no training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable as there is no training set.

Summary based on the provided document:

The 510(k) submission for the LANDLEX S403X electric scooter relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device (LANDLEX S400X, K050793). The document explicitly states: "There are minor differences in performance specifications of the scooters, these differences do not alter the intended function and use of the device, nor do they raise any new questions pertaining to safety or effectiveness."

This type of submission typically confirms that the new device meets the same safety and performance profile as the predicate through design comparison and, perhaps, basic engineering tests, rather than comprehensive clinical performance studies against defined acceptance criteria. Therefore, the detailed information requested regarding clinical study design, ground truth, and expert evaluation is not present in this document.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LANDLEX P100X scooter is motor driven, indoor and outdoor transportation vehicles with the intended use to provide mobility to disabled or elderly persons limited to a seated position.

The LANDLEX P100X scooter is an indoor/outdoor transportation vehicles which is battery operated. The movement of the scooter is controlled by a tiller handle and a thumb operated potentiometer throttle control lever to engage and disengage the scooter motion in both the forward and reverse directions.

This 510(k) summary (K060042) describes a motorized scooter, the LANDLEX P100X. It is a Class II medical device, classified as a "Motorized three-wheeled vehicle."

Here's the breakdown of the information requested, based on the provided document:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The provided document does not explicitly define specific performance acceptance criteria or report detailed performance metrics for the LANDLEX P100X. Instead, it relies on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices. The "minor differences in performance specifications" are mentioned but not detailed, and no specific numerical criteria are given.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document does not describe a specific "test set" or data provenance in the context of typical device performance studies (e.g., clinical trials, bench testing with quantified results). The substantial equivalence claim is made based on the device's design and intended use compared to predicates, rather than a prospective study with a defined test set.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

This information is not applicable or provided in the document. The substantial equivalence argument for this type of device does not typically involve expert review of a "test set" for ground truth establishment in the way it would for, say, an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

This information is not applicable or provided in the document.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

This information is not applicable or provided in the document. This device is an electrical scooter; it does not involve human readers interpreting images or data, nor does it incorporate AI in the sense of a diagnostic or assistive technology for human readers.

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

This information is not applicable or provided in the document. The LANDLEX P100X is a physical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

Ground truth, in the context of demonstrating performance against a standard, is not explicitly mentioned or described for this device. The basis for approval is substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, meaning that if the predicates were deemed safe and effective, and the new device is sufficiently similar, it can also be considered safe and effective.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable or provided in the document. The device is a physical product, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This information is not applicable or provided in the document for the reasons stated above.

Ask a specific question about this device