Search Results

The intended use of the Electric Wheelchair (Robooter E40), Model name: BBR-E40-01 is to provide outdoor and indoor mobility to persons limited to a seated position that are capable of operating a powered wheelchair.

The Electric Wheelchair (Robooter E40), Model name: BBR-E40-01 is an indoor/outdoor, battery-operated, 2-wheel drive (rear-wheel drive) powered wheelchair. It consists of four modules: seat system, control system, braking system, and drive system. The user sits in the wheelchair seat and uses the control system. The control panel positioned on the right or left armrest allows the user to turn the wheelchair on, control the speed, and direct the movement. The braking system employs an electromagnetic brake. When the controller rocker is released, the electromagnetic brakes will be actuated, and the electric wheelchair will stop in several seconds. The electromagnetic brake will not take effect immediately, it will take effect after the wheel rotates for 1/2 cycle. The wheelchair is powered by a 24V DC, 20Ah rechargeable lithium-ion battery charged by an offboard lithium-ion battery charger. The wheelchair is driven by two DC motors. The Electric Wheelchair (Robooter E40), Model name: BBR-E40-01 contains Bluetooth 4.1 BLE technology. The device can be controller rocker or remote control by a smartphone app via Bluetooth 4.1 Low Energy (BLE) wireless communication interface. The smartphone app is used to drive the chair remotely. For safety, control is priority over the remote control by design. The smartphone app can also view the battery's status, adjust the speed gear level and lock/unlock the unattended device. The wheelchair can be folded/expanded manually. The Left and right handrails (joystick) can be interchange.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for an Electric Wheelchair (Robooter E40), Model: BBR-E40-01. It describes how the device compares to a predicate device and the performance testing conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence. However, it does not involve an AI algorithm with specific acceptance criteria related to accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity. Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable.

Here's an analysis of the available information:

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

For a medical device like an electric wheelchair, the "acceptance criteria" are compliance with various safety and performance standards, primarily ISO 7176 series, rather than metrics like accuracy or sensitivity for an AI system. The device aims to meet these standards to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

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

The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of an AI algorithm or data. The performance testing is described as non-clinical testing to ensure compliance with relevant ISO standards. This typically involves testing of physical units of the device. Sample sizes for these types of engineering tests are not usually reported in the same way as for clinical trials or AI validation sets. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable or provided.

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 is not applicable as there is no mention of a "test set" that requires expert-established ground truth. The acceptance is based on compliance with engineering and safety standards.

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

This is not applicable for the type of device and testing 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 is not applicable since the device is an electric wheelchair, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human "readers" or clinicians.

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

This is not applicable as the device is an electric wheelchair, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is adherence to the measurement and safety requirements specified in the various ISO and ANSI standards listed. For example, for static stability, the ground truth is simply whether the device maintained stability under the specified test conditions.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable as the device is a physical product, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

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

This is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The intended use of the Electric Wheelchair (Model: BBR-LY-01-01) is to provide outdoor and indoor mobility to persons limited to a seated position that are capable of operating a powered wheelchair.

The Electric Wheelchair (Model: BBR-LY-01-01) is an indoor/outdoor, battery-operated, 2-wheel drive (rear-wheel drive) powered wheelchair. lt consists of four modules: seat system, control system, braking system, and drive system. The user sits in the wheelchair seat and uses the control system. The control pad positioned on the right armrest, user can turn the wheelchair on, control the speed, and direct the movement. The braking system employs an electromagnetic brake, when release the controller rocker, the electromagnetic brakes will be actuated, and the electric wheelchair will stop in several seconds. Electromagnetic brake will not take effect immediately, it will take effect after the wheel rotates for 1/2 cycle. The wheelchair is powered by a 24V DC,20Ah rechargeable lithium-ion battery charged by an offboard lithium-ion battery charger. The wheelchair is driven by two DC motors. The Electric Wheelchair (Model: BBR-LY-01-01) contains Bluetooth 4.1 BLE technology. The device can be controlled by the controller rocker or remote control by a smartphone app via Bluetooth 4.1 Low Energy (BLE) wireless communication interface. The smartphone app is used to drive the chair remotely. For safety, controller rocker control is priority over the remote control by design. The smartphone app can also view the battery's status, adjust the speed gear level and lock/unlock the unattended device. The wheelchair can be folded automatically.

This document describes the FDA's 510(k) clearance for the Shanghai BangBang Robotics Co., Ltd. Electric Wheelchair (Model: BBR-LY-01-01). As such, it focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device rather than providing a detailed study of the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria in the manner an AI/ML algorithm submission would.

Therefore, many of the requested points are not applicable to this type of regulatory submission for a physical medical device. However, I can extract the relevant information regarding performance and testing.

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

For a physical device like an electric wheelchair, "acceptance criteria" are generally compliance with recognized consensus standards. The performance is reported as meeting these standards.

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

This information is typically not included in a 510(k) summary for a non-software medical device. Testing against ISO standards usually involves a representative number of physical units, not a "test set" of data in the AI/ML sense. The testing would have been done by the manufacturer (Shanghai BangBang Robotics Co., Ltd. in China) and verified by a recognized testing body.

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)

Not Applicable. For a physical device, "ground truth" is established by the direct physical measurement and performance testing against the specifications outlined in the international consensus standards (e.g., measuring stability, braking distance, dimensions). This does not involve expert consensus in the diagnostic sense.

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

Not Applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for establishing ground truth in image interpretation or similar diagnostic tasks, typically for AI/ML algorithms. This is not relevant for the performance testing of an electric wheelchair.

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. MRMC studies are specific to evaluating the impact of AI on human readers (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). This device is a physical product (electric wheelchair) and does not involve "human readers" or "AI assistance" in that context.

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

Not Applicable. This device is an electric wheelchair, not an algorithm. While it has a control system and Bluetooth connectivity, its primary function is mechanical mobility, and it is always operated with a human in the loop (the user or a remote controller).

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is compliance with international consensus standards (ISO 7176 series and others) through objective performance testing and measurement. For example, the braking distance being 120cm is a factual measurement, not an expert opinion or pathology finding.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm, so there is no "training set."

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

Not Applicable. No training set exists for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device