BME100 f2013:W1200 Group14 L3

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
BME 100 Fall 2013 Home
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
Wiki Editing Help


Name: Vaasavi
Name: student
Name: student
Name: student
Name: student
Name: student


Descriptive Statistics

Oral Thermometer

  Average: 97.6540113 degrees Fahrenheit
  Standard Deviation: 1.023622278 degrees Fahrenheit
  Endpoint #: 176
  Standard Error: .076940162


  Average: 96.1674285714286 degrees Fahrenheit
  Standard Deviation: 1.58733941819524 degrees Fahrenheit
  Endpoint #: 176
  Standard Error: 0.119650210570333


(Well-labeled graph with error bars and significance)

The graph demonstrates that there is a clear difference between the average temperature readings of the oral thermometer and the sensor.Furthermore, the error bars are larger and more significant with the sensor, implying that the sensor is less accurate than the oral thermometer.


The null hypothesis states that the results of both the oral thermometer and the sensor are the same. The alternate hypothesis states that the results may vary-- based off of our results, the alternate is more accurate. After running a t-test on the data, a p-value of 3.30237E-22. Because the p-value was below .05, this means that there is an extremely low chance that the results are the same. After running a Pearson's coefficient test, it was found that the r-value was 0.050573103, meaning that the results between the oral thermometer and the sensor were not correlated. The average temperature detected by the oral thermometer is 97.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
The sensor has an average reading of 96.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
The difference between the two averages is 1.49 degress Fahrenheit.


In order to test the differences in accuracy between the oral thermometer and the sensor, temperature readings were taken both inside and outside of the lab. When staying inside, readings were taken every two minutes for 10 minutes. When outside, readings were taken every 5 minutes for an hour. Based off of our results, we determined that there was a significant difference between the two products, which means that the sensor was not as accurate as the oral thermometer. This difference is because there were many errors when using the sensor. The sensor is not a reliable device for everyday use because during trials we faced many problems. We had issues connecting the device over bluetooth, even over a short distance. Also,the device does not give consistent readings unless it is placed very specifically under a certain part of the arm. Another problem we ran into was the fact that it was warmer outside than normal body temperature so we had to make sure the test subject was completely covering the sensor with the arm. The tape that comes with the sensor didn't stick to the skin very well so we had to use extra adhesive, not included with the product. This is why the results had such a low Pearson's r coefficient-- with all these errors, the oral thermometer and the sensor's results did not correlate at all. The sensor can be redone to be more accurate by having stronger tape, and to have a stronger connection to the bluetooth. It should be made to read signals over longer distances as well. In conclusion, the sensor is not an accurate measure of temperature.

(Please discuss the results and statistical analysis. State your conclusion as well as design flaws and recommendations.)


Target Population and Need

Target Population:
Parents of young children, namely infants. There are only two ways out there to take the temperature of a baby, oral thermometers and rectal thermometers. However, this device allows for a third and more accurate reading of the temperature
While being more accurate it is also more convenient. The pacifier fits naturally in a baby's mouth, which makes the struggle of getting a baby to cooperate non-existent. Our device is less invasive than the more common rectal thermometers used to measure the temperatures of infants. Our device is better than the under arm patch because it is more comfortable for babies and more accurate. Also, you can easily see the results quickly and you don't need an iPhone to see the temperature readings. Our product doesn't use bluetooth or any other unnecessary technology to show results so it is less expensive to produce, and therefore available to more families.


=Inferential Statistics


  Standard Deviation:0.971566066
  Endpoint: 39
  Standard Error: 0.155073824

Rectal Thermometer:

  Standard Deviation: 0.827341482
  Endpoint: 39
  Standard Error: 0.123565158


  Pearsons' Coefficient Test: 0.81092781

Both a t-test and a pearson's coefficient test were run. The "p" value indicated by the t-test was 0.410478683, indicating that becuase the p value was not less than .05, there was not a stastically significant difference between the different results. Also, the "r" value given by the pearson's coefficient test was 0.81092781, indicating that while the correlation is not perfect, there is still a significant correlation between the two data sets.