BME100 s2014:W Group1 L3

BME 100 Fall 2013	Home People Lab Write-Up 1 | Lab Write-Up 2 | Lab Write-Up 3 Lab Write-Up 4 | Lab Write-Up 5 | Lab Write-Up 6 Course Logistics For Instructors Photos Wiki Editing Help
OUR TEAM Name: Maria Jose Quezada Name: John Tobey Name: Danielle Eldred Name: David Kish Name: Khalid Al-Qahtani LAB 3A WRITE-UP Descriptive Statistics Temperature Devices Oral Thermometer Mean: 97.042 Standard Deviation: 1.127 Standard Error: 0.07337 Skin Sensor Mean: 96.358 Standard Deviation: 2.152 Standard Error: 0.140 t- Value: [math]\displaystyle{ 2.09/10^5 }[/math] Pulse Devices Pulse Oximeter Pulse Mean: 87.86 bpm Standard Deviation: ±13.94 Standard Error: ± 4.60 Watch Sensor Pulse Mean: 86.68 bpm Standard Deviation:±16.15354973 Standard Error: ±3.28 T.Test: 0.092107589 Blood Pressure Devices BP Cuff Pulse Mean: 118.27 mmHg Standard Deviation: ±18.95 Standard Error: ±4.60 Watch Sensor Pulse Mean: 112.3109244 mmHg Standard Deviation: ±13.51 Standard Error: ± 3.28 T.Test:2.97287E-05 Results Temperatura Graphs Pulse Graphs Pressure Graphs File:Graph.xlsx Analysis Based on our data and calculations: There appears to be no significant correlation between the two temperature readings. There appears to be a correlation between the two pulse readings. There appears to be a weak correlation between the two blood pressure readings. Summary/Discussion Temperature In the experiment we were supplied tow devices that were designed to measure body temperature. The first one was a generic oral thermometer, which is used by putting the device under the subjects tongue. The second device a sensor that measures through physical contact, so it is placed in the arm pit to ensure an accurate core reading. At the beginning each sensor was rather precise. The oral thermometer fluctuated by a variant of about one degree, while the contact sensor fluctuated by a higher margin. However throughout the experiment we kept losing the Bluetooth connection with the contact sensor. This made it necessary to repeatedly remove the sensor to check the measurements, which would reduce accuracy. We would suggest modifying the connectivity options of the contact sensor, this would ensure more accurate and precise measurements. Also it would be beneficial if it were designed to be more physically compatible. Our test subject kept complaining that it was uncomfortable. Pressure and Pulse For the pressure segment of the lab we were given three devices, a pulse oximeter, a wrist sensor, and a medical grade blood pressure sensor. All three could measure a subjects pulse, however the pulse oximeter could not measure blood pressure. The pulse oximeter is used by placing on the subject’s finger, the wrist sensor is worn like a watch, and the medical grade blood pressure sensor is an arm wrap that is then inflated. The devices had a high level of variance on the subject. For example the first measurement stated his blood pressure was 125, while the second stated it was only 95. Granted he didn’t stand still which could be a cause for error. Each device was consistent but the variance between each device was the problem. The wrist sensor usually ranged between 111 and 102 while the medical grade device ranged from 94 to 186. To measure heart rate we compared the pulse oximeter to the wrist sensor. There wasn’t that huge difference between the measurements of the two devices, but the measurements were fluctuating too much to claim either device was precise. We believe the medical grade blood pressure sensor needs to be modified to allow some motion because the human body is physically designed to move. The pulse oximeter needs sensors on both sides because when the pulse oximeter was worn with the sensor on the fingernail the measurement was different than if it was worn on the pad of the finger. Finally the wrist sensor seemed to be the most consistent and accurate of the measuring devices so our only suggestion would be to design it to be worn at any angle on the wrist to facilitate common usage. LAB 3B WRITE-UP Target Population and Need iRon B is a device designed to measure the iron levels within a person’s blood. It does this by using electromagnetism to identify the body’s electromagnetic fields caused by hemoglobin, which is the iron carrying component of a red blood cell. The target population is going to be pregnant women. This population is most at risk for iron deficiency, so having a way to consistently measure iron levels accurately would help prevent negative repercussions of iron deficiency. Some such repercussions are premature birth, miscarriage, low birth weight, and anemia. Though pregnant women are our target population this device could be used to monitor children who are also at risk of iron deficiency, athletes who need iron to properly compete in their sports, and anyone else who wants to know their iron levels. This device is beneficial because it is a noninvasive way to measure iron levels within the blood. Most current tests require a blood sample, which cause people discomfort and unnecessary hassle because they have to make themselves bleed. iRon B however will allow them to get continuous measurements without the hassle of pricking themselves. Device Design TV Commercial [1] Logo and Slogan"" Prototype Inferential Statistics Normal Blood-Iron Levels: 40-160 mcg/dL The raw data from the Gold-Standard Blood-Serum test versus the iRonB test can be downloaded here: File:Blood Iron test.xlsx Calculated Data: iRonB Mean: 120.5918367 Gold-Standard Mean: 120.4081633 iRon B Standard Deviation: 28.9324976 Gold-Standard Standard Deviation: 29.15505535 iRon B Standard Error: 2.922623607 Gold-Standard Standard Error: 2.945105334 t-value: 0.9647 p-value: 0.3394 [math]\displaystyle{ r^2 }[/math] = 0.98858 A p-value of 0.3394, along with our t-vlaue of 0.9647 , that we reject the null hypothesis that the standard Serum Blood test and the iRonB display significantly different results. In addition, an [math]\displaystyle{ r^2 }[/math] value of 0.98858 shows that the two sets of data (iRonB and Gold-Standard) are linearly related. The data currently shows that there is no significant difference between the two measuring devices. This shows that iRonB is as precise and accurate as our "Gold standard" Iron Seronium Test. With this we now know that iRonB is a medical grade device that is ready and able to be advertised and sold to a general market. The p value from our T-Test was less than .05 verifying said statements to be true. Graph