# BME100 f2013:W1200 Group14 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: VaasaviSundar(s) Name: studentRole(s) Name: studentRole(s) Name: studentRole(s) Name: studentRole(s) Name: studentRole(s)

# LAB 3A WRITE-UP

## Descriptive Statistics

Oral Thermometer

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


Sensor

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


## Results

(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.

## Analysis

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.

## Summary/Discussion

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

# LAB 3B WRITE-UP

## 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

Pacifier:

  Average:98.8974359
Standard Deviation:0.971566066
Endpoint: 39
Standard Error: 0.155073824


Rectal Thermometer:

  Average:98.9153846
Standard Deviation: 0.827341482
Endpoint: 39
Standard Error: 0.123565158


STATS:

  t-test:0.410478683
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.