Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K091212
    Date Cleared
    2009-05-27

    (30 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    890.3800
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The device is intended for medical purposes to provide mobility to persons restricted to a seated position.

    Device Description

    The WU'S SCOOTER WT-T3H is an indoor / outdoor electric scooter that is battery operated. It has a base with three-wheeled, a seat, two armrests, and a front basket. The movement of the scooter is controlled by the rider who uses hand controls located at the top of the steering column. The device can be disassembled for transport and is provided with an onboard battery charger.

    AI/ML Overview

    1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    This device (WU'S ELECTRICAL SCOOTER, WT-T3H) is a motorized three-wheeled vehicle. The acceptance criteria and reported device performance are based on comparison to a legally marketed predicate device (WU'S SCOOTER WT-T3D (K032488)) and adherence to relevant performance standards.

    Acceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance (WT-T3H)
    Intended UseSame as predicate: "To provide mobility to persons restricted to a seated position."
    Weight Limit250 lbs (Same as predicate)
    Maximum Speed4 mph (Same as predicate)
    Safety Climbing Angle8° (Same as predicate)
    Back Upholstery MaterialSame as predicate; passed resistance ignition test by SGS (Same safety level)
    Electronic SystemsPassed UL certification (electronic controller, batteries, recharge) (Same as predicate)
    EMC Report StandardsANSI / RESNA WC/Vol.2-1998, CISPR 11: 1990, EN61000-3-2: 1995, IEC61000-3-3: 1995 (Electrically powered wheelchairs, scooters, and their chargers - requirements and test methods)

    2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

    The document does not detail specific sample sizes for a test set in the traditional sense of a clinical or laboratory study with a cohort of subjects. The evaluation is primarily based on:

    • Comparison to a predicate device: This involves comparing specifications and performance characteristics.
    • Compliance with established engineering standards: These standards represent predefined test methods and acceptable limits.

    Therefore, the concept of a "test set" as in clinical data is not directly applicable here. The data provenance is derived from engineering and safety testing performed on the device itself and its components, likely in a controlled laboratory environment. The country of origin for the submitting company is China (Taiwan).

    3. Number of Experts and Qualifications

    The document does not specify the number or qualifications of "experts" used to establish ground truth for a test set. The ground truth for this type of device is established through:

    • Regulatory standards: The expertise is embedded in the development of the ANSI/RESNA, CISPR, EN, and IEC standards.
    • Component certifications: UL certification also relies on the expertise of their testing and certification bodies.
    • Comparison to the predicate: The predicate device itself has already undergone a regulatory review based on established safety and performance criteria.

    4. Adjudication Method

    An adjudication method in the context of expert review for a test set is not described or applicable here. The assessment is based on objective measurements against engineering standards and direct comparison of specifications to a predicate device.

    5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

    An MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not applicable to this type of device. This device is a mobility aid, and its performance is evaluated against engineering specifications and safety standards, not through diagnostic accuracy or interpretation by human readers.

    6. Standalone Performance Study

    Yes, a standalone performance assessment was done in the sense that the device was subjected to performance testing against established standards (EMC Report, ANSI/RESNA WC/Vol.2-1998, CISPR 11: 1990, EN61000-3-2: 1995, IEC61000-3-3: 1995). The document states that the electronic systems (controller, batteries, recharge) passed UL certification, indicating testing of these components in isolation.

    7. Type of Ground Truth Used

    The ground truth used is primarily:

    • Engineering Standards: Compliance with recognized national and international standards for electrically powered wheelchairs, scooters, and their chargers.
    • Performance Specifications of a Predicate Device: Direct comparison of key performance characteristics (e.g., weight limit, speed, climbing angle) to an already cleared device.
    • Component Certifications: Independent certification (UL) for critical electronic components.

    8. Sample Size for the Training Set

    A "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI is not applicable to this device. This is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm that learns from data.

    9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

    As there is no training set for a machine learning algorithm, this question is not applicable.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1