Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(88 days)
The intended use of the Discovery rear wheel drive power wheelchair is to provide mobility to persons limited to a sitting position who have the capability of operating a power wheelchair.
The Discovery power wheelchair is a battery powered, motorized mobility vehicle. The intended use of the Discovery rear wheel drive power wheelchair is to provide mobility to persons limited to a sitting position who have the capability of operating a power wheelchair.
The Discovery is designed to be durable, dependable, sporty and aesthetically appealing while being economically priced.
Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding the Karma Discovery Series Power Wheelchair, framed by your requested categories:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Acceptance Criteria (Standard) | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
ISO/CD 7176-21 (General requirements for wheelchairs) | Met the required performance criteria and functioned as intended. |
ANSI/RESNA Vol.2 Section 21 Amendments (Powered wheelchairs and motorized scooters) | Met the required performance criteria and functioned as intended. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not explicitly state the sample size of devices used for testing. The data provenance is also not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin of the data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications
This information is not provided in the document. The standards (ISO/CD 7176-21 and ANSI/RESNA Vol.2 Section 21 Amendments) are primarily engineering and performance standards, not typically relying on expert interpretation for "ground truth" in the way a medical diagnostic device would.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This information is not provided. Given the nature of performance testing against engineering standards, an adjudication method in the sense of reconciling divergent expert opinions is unlikely to have been relevant. The tests likely have objective pass/fail criteria.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Its Effect Size
No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic or assistive devices where human interpretation or interaction is a critical component influencing effectiveness, and the document describes a power wheelchair, a mechanical mobility device.
6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done
Yes, the performance testing described effectively represents "standalone" performance in the context of this device. The tests were performed on the power wheelchair itself to ensure it met specific engineering and safety standards, without necessarily involving a human user in a "human-in-the-loop" performance evaluation (beyond what's necessary to operate the device for testing purposes). The focus is on the device's inherent mechanical and electrical capabilities.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The ground truth used was compliance with established engineering and safety standards. Specifically, the device's performance was compared against the requirements laid out in:
- ISO/CD 7176-21
- ANSI/RESNA Vol.2 Section 21 Amendments
These standards define objective performance criteria for power wheelchairs.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
This information is not provided in the document. The concept of a "training set" is typically associated with machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithms, which are not relevant to the described testing of a power wheelchair against engineering standards.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
This information is not applicable as there is no "training set" in the context of the performance testing described.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1