Search Results

The XT2 power wheelchair is a battery-operated device with wheels that is intended for medical purposes to provide mobility to persons restricted to a sitting position who have the capability of operating a power wheelchair. The XT4 power wheelchair is a battery-operated device with wheels that is intended for medical purposes to provide mobility to persons restricted to a sitting position who have the capability of operating a power wheelchair.

The XT Series Power Wheelchair has two configurations: XT2 and XT4. They are designed for everyday use for both indoor and outdoor environments including care facilities and private residences. The subject device is intended to provide mobility to persons who are restricted or limited to a sitting position. The XT Series Power Wheelchairs are battery powered, electric motor driven devices that can be used on both indoor and outdoor surfaces (i.e., concrete, asphalt, indoor flooring such as carpet, gravel, grass, and bark/woodchips). The XT Series Power Wheelchair offers two basic seating options: MPS and Rehab. The MPS option is more static and does not allow for additional aftermarket cushions. The Rehab option is more adjustable to adhere to recommendations from the user's physician or physical therapist.

The provided document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for a Magic Mobility XT Series Power Wheelchair. It details the device's technical specifications, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices, along with the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence.

However, the document does not contain any information about an AI/ML-based medical device, nor does it include details about a study conducted to demonstrate its performance against specific acceptance criteria for such a device. The device described, a powered wheelchair, is a physical medical device, not a software or AI-driven diagnostic or therapeutic tool that would typically have acceptance criteria related to accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or human-in-the-loop performance improvement.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them, a sample size, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, or MRMC studies, as these concepts are not applicable to the content of the provided document.

The document focuses on non-clinical bench testing to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the physical wheelchair in comparison to existing predicate devices, primarily through adherence to ISO standards for wheelchairs.

To directly answer your prompt, based on the provided text:

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

• This document does not present acceptance criteria or reported performance for an AI/ML device. It lists various ISO standards that the physical wheelchair was tested against. The "reported device performance" is essentially that it met these standards, thus demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. For example, for "Static stability," the acceptance criterion is compliance with ISO 7176-1, and the reported performance is implicit compliance as it contributed to the substantial equivalence determination.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided for an AI/ML device. The "test set" here refers to the physical wheelchairs undergoing bench testing. The sample size for such physical product testing is not specified, but typically involves a small number of units. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not relevant for this type of medical device testing.

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/ML device's performance (e.g., disease detection) is not established for a physical powered wheelchair. The "truth" for this device is its adherence to engineering standards.

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

• Not applicable. This is a concept for reconciling disagreements among human readers in a diagnostic AI/ML study, not for physical product testing.

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:

• No, an MRMC study was not done as this is a physical wheelchair, not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive device.

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

• Not applicable. There is no AI algorithm being submitted for standalone performance evaluation in this document.

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

• Not applicable in the context of AI/ML. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is adherence to established international engineering and safety standards (e.g., ISO, IEC).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This document does not describe an AI/ML device, so there is no training set for an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device