Search Results

The Centro wheelchairs are designed solely for individual use by persons who are unable to walk or who have a walking impediment, and can be operated either by the patient or by another person. Centro wheelchairs are suitable for patients with walking impediments/inability due to, but not limited to:

• . Palsies/Paralyses
• . Defective and/or deformed limbs
• Loss of limb (leg amputation) .
• . Joint contractures/defects
• Diseases such as cardiac or circulatory insufficiency, balance disorders . or cachexia, as well as geriatric patients who still have usable residual strength in the upper limbs.

The Centro Wheelchairs are an uncomplicated line of wheelchair (S1 and A3 models) and are appropriate for short-term use. The Centro wheelchairs are very robust, which ensures that they will have a long service life. The product has a functional knee lever lock. The stable cross brace ensures that it folds easily. Thus, the Gentro can be folded to a very small size easily, and it is convenient to transport or space-saving for storage. The Centro with 124 rear wheels offers the possibility to use it as a functional transit wheelchair. Due to the nylon covering of seat and back upholstery, the chairs are easy to clean or disinfect and thus always quickly ready for use.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a manual wheelchair. It describes the device's features, intended use, and the standards it meets. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria for an AI/ML device, a study that proves the device meets those criteria, or details regarding the establishment of ground truth by expert readers, multi-reader multi-case studies, or training/test set data specifics.

The document specifically states that the device is a "Manual Wheelchair" and that testing was conducted according to engineering and quality standards for medical devices and wheelchairs (e.g., DIN EN 12182, ISO 7176 series). It also mentions a "field test" to verify suitability for daily use.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill most of your request directly from the provided text, as the questions pertain to the evaluation of an AI/ML-based medical device, which this wheelchair is not.

Here's a breakdown of why I cannot answer each point from the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document lists various ISO and DIN EN standards the wheelchair complies with (e.g., determination of static stability, brake efficiency, dimensions, static impact/fatigue strengths). These are the "acceptance criteria" for a mechanical device, and the document implicitly states the device "was conducted by Berlin Cert" and "is certified for CE conformity and its suitability for daily use was verified in a field test," implying it met these standards. However, it does not provide numerical performance data like sensitivity/specificity for an AI model.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not applicable for a mechanical wheelchair. The "test set" would be physical wheelchairs subjected to engineering tests, not 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): Not applicable. Ground truth for a wheelchair's performance is established by direct physical measurements according to standards, not by expert interpretation of data.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.

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 for AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative tasks.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For this mechanical device, the ground truth is established by the specifications of the DIN EN and ISO standards and direct physical testing against those standards. For example, "determination of static stability" involves specific weight and angle measurements to meet a standard, not a human expert consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not use a "training set" in the AI/ML context.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided text describes the regulatory clearance process for a manual wheelchair, focusing on its compliance with established mechanical engineering and safety standards, not on the performance of an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device.

Ask a specific question about this device