Search Results

The indications for use for the Weelchair is to provide mobility to persons limited to a sitting position.

The Rupiani Weely Manual Wheelchair (Weely) is a manually operated, user propelled, manual, mechanical wheelchair. It's intended function and use is to provide mobility to persons limited to a sitting position. It may also be used in as an attendant propelled transport device in a health care environment such as a hospital, nursing home or extended care facility.

The Weely consists primarily of an upper and lower frame assembly, upholstery for seating, large wheels for propelling the chair and rear swivel type pivoting casters for turning. The wheels and casters are mounted to the lower frame assembly. The wheelchair seat and back mount to the upper frame assemblies are constructed from aluminum tubing. The rear casters act as "anti-tippers and provide added stability

The lower frame is of rigid (non-folding) design. The back rest can be folded to allow for storage and transport of the chair when it is not in use. The Weely is equipped with a Varilite rigid backrest and a Varilite EVOLUTION cushion covered by SooFleece III mesh fabric provided by Ventex. The upholstery materials meet the requirements of ISO 8191-1 Part 1:Ignition Source: Smoldering Cigarette and - ISO 8191-2 Part 2: Ignition Source: Flame Match-Flame Equivalent Standard for Resistance to Ignition of Upholstered Parts.

The Weely includes a tilt mechanism which allows the seat and back of the wheelchair to be tilted. This feature is used to provide comfort to those users who may be confined to the wheelchair for extended periods of time. The tilt mechanism can also serve as an attendant aid in those situations where a patient needs to be tilted for attendant access.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Weely Manual Wheelchair." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (PDG Fuze T50 Manual Wheelchair) rather than detailing a specific study to prove the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/algorithm-driven imaging device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories (such as sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, ground truth types, training set sample size, and how training ground truth was established) are not applicable to this document as it describes a mechanical wheelchair, not an AI or algorithm-based diagnostic or prognostic device.

However, I can extract information related to acceptance criteria (in this context, performance standards) and how the device meets them based on the provided text.

Here's the information that can be extracted:

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

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

• Not Applicable. This document describes performance testing for a mechanical device against international standards, not a clinical study with a test set of data. The "test set" in this context refers to the physical wheelchair being tested in accordance with the listed ISO standards. No specific sample size of devices is mentioned, but typically such testing would involve one or more units of the device.

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

• Not Applicable. Ground truth in the context of an AI/algorithm is not relevant here. The "ground truth" for a mechanical device is its adherence to engineering specifications and performance under standardized test conditions, as defined by organizations like ISO.

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

• Not Applicable. Adjudication methods are for assessment of human or AI interpretation of data, which is not relevant to this mechanical device.

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:

• Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable directly in the AI/algorithm sense. For a mechanical device, the "ground truth" is established by adherence to universally accepted engineering and performance standards (e.g., ISO standards for wheelchair stability, brake effectiveness, material ignitability, etc.) validated through physical testing.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This is a mechanical device; there is no "training set."

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

• Not Applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

These devices are tricycles that are indicated for use with people, from children to adults, some of whom may have motor disabilities.

These devices are tricycles

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a device called "TONICROSS Tricycles." This document is a regulatory approval and does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, expert ground truth, or MRMC comparative effectiveness studies.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, as this information is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device