BME100 f2013:W1200 Group18 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: student
Name: student
Name: student
Name: student
Name: student
Name: student


Descriptive Statistics

Inside #1:
Average Oral: 97.69
Average Sensor: 95.38
Standard Dev. Oral: 0.653
Standard Dev. Sensor: 1.939

Average Oral: 97.54
Average Sensor: 96.48
Standard Dev. Oral: 1.273
Standard Dev. Sensor: 1.39

Inside #2:
Average Oral: 97.51
Average Sensor: 96.06
Standard Dev. Oral: 0.615
Standard Dev. Sensor: 1.657


(Well-labeled graph with error bars and significance)


T Tests

Pearson's r Correlation

(Perform inferential statistics described in assignment.)


A thermometer manufactured by Raiing claims to have the ability to measure temperature then wirelessly communicate the results to a smart phone with pristine accuracy(.1-2 degrees within the actual temperature). In order to test whether or not it's worth the eighty dollars to purchase and receive a correct reading, our group will test the measure of the sensor thermometer against the measure of an oral thermometer over a period of time. Testing the two simultaneously should reveal whether or not having a device like the wireless thermometer is even beneficial. If the two aren't showing the same relative reading, then it can be concluded that the sensor is not as accurate as Raiing claims it to be.

According to results in the actual final measures, the sensor was not as effective as Raiin had claimed. The sensor was consistent, but was consistently several degrees off from the oral thermometer. As said before, had the sensor been within a tenth of a degree or so, spending the money on the device would be worth the price. When T-Tests were run to obtain P-Values for each difference in the average temperature, the values calculated were supportive of the faults in the sensor. Every P-Value calculated (Inside #1, Outside, and Inside #2) was significantly under 0.05 demonstrating a significant difference in the two devices. Additionally, the Pearson's r correlations for the inside trial #1, outside trial and inside trial #2 were respectively 0.305, 0.03301 and .245. For this experiment, the ideal Pearson's r is 1. Because the collected values deviated significantly from 1, it can be concluded that the correlation between the proven oral thermometer and the sensor is not nearly enough to trust the tested sensor device in place of the proven device. The sensor is not worth the money Raiing is asking nor is it effective. An observation frequent in this experiment was that the sensor actually stopped working and stopped communicating body temperature to the device receiving the sensor's readings. The fact that the device even failed reinforces our conclusion that it really isn't a valuable purchase.

The first change we would make to the sensor would be its bulkiness. Having a smaller transmitter and a smaller thermometer would be easier to but in a spot in which a better reading is more possible. If that were the case, it could actually be placed in the armpit or behind the ear. Having a more sensitive sensor would also improve the reading that consumer would receive on their device; which is what the sensor is supposed to and should be doing in the first place. The final most important piece of the design that could be changed to increase the efficiency, is the strength of the transmitter to the receiving device. Better communication can really do no wrong.


Target Population and Need

The need in which our group decided to focus on was young, sick children with temperatures that need to be regularly monitored. Considering younger children (0-6) tend to spend more time sleeping or playing, taking their temperature can be a challenge between trying not to wake them up or getting them to stay still long enough to get an accurate temperature. With our newly designed WiTherm Wireless Thermometer, a small thermometer sensor can be stuck to the child's forehead or underarm just like an over the counter band-aid. Like the thermometer from Raiing, our thermometer has a wireless component that communicates with a hand-held device to display temperature. As long as both the hand held device is connected to a wireless network, it's able to communicate to the small sensor that will always be sending out the child's temperature.

Device Design

Shown in Figure 1 is the actual sensor in which on-goingly measures the temperature of the child. The circular thermometer itself is the size of a dime and has three square prongs that are used to attach to the adhesive aspect of the thermometer.

Figure 1

The adhesive piece that attaches to the sensor is the same size as a half dollar coin and has three open square slits around a circular center (Figure 2). Each of the slits are also adhesive on the inner slit so that the sensor is not easily removed by a child to be a possible choking hazard. This is where the sensor is placed. To successfully make the sensor and adhesive one entity, the parent would slide each of the square prongs on the actual sensor into the three prongs of the adhesive piece. Just like that, a thermometer has become a Band-Aid like medical device (as shown in Figure 3) and will stick to a child for up to 8 hours.
Figure 2

Figure 3

In Figure 4 is the hand held device that displays temperature as long as it has working batteries and is powered on. The screen will always show the amount of battery left in the product as well, the estimated distance from the child and, of course, the child’s temperature. Much like a baby monitor, a stable connection needs to be made in order for the device to work. Therefore, it would be ideal for the child and the parent to be in the same household for the device to be able to communicate correctly.
Figure 4

Considering that the sensor has its own wireless component that will automatically connect to an open Wi-Fi connection, it will automatically connect with the hand held device as long as it’s powered on and is also on a stable wireless connection (modeled in Figure 5).
Figure 5

With the comfort and convenience of a Band-Aid, every child that wears WiTherm has the ability to play, eat, and sleep freely, completely unaware that they are being monitored constantly by their parent. Although the small sensor is such a small and discrete device, it really can save a child from having complications because of a temperature that ran too high and no one knew. The safety of a child’s health can be right at their parent’s fingertips (Figure 6).
Figure 6

Inferential Statistics


Healthy Children

Averages (Oral Thermometer/WiTherm):98.24761905/98.21904762
Standard Deviation(Oral Thermometer/WiTherm):0.836432333/0.80350423

T test:0.910685189

Pearson's r correlation coefficient: 0.994004706

Children with the flu

Averages (Oral Thermometer/WiTherm):102.6666667/102.6095238

Standard Deviation (Oral thermometer/WiTherm):1.010610377/1.006431698

T test: 0.855255463

Pearson's r correlation coefficient: 0.995303377