BME100 f2013:W1200 Group8 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: Colby Mark
Name: Hayden McIver
Name: Madison Grayson
Name: Andrew Wills
Name: Isai Valdez


Descriptive Statistics

Averages: Sensor:96.13701299 degrees Fahrenheit Oral:97.56610389 degrees Fahrenheit

Standard Deviation: Sensor:1.280723306 Oral:.8053509188



The null hypothesis states that the thermometer temperature is the same. The alternative hypothesis states that the temperatures vary. The average temperature for the oral sensor is 97.566, and the standard deviation of the oral sensor is .805. The average for the external sensor is 96.137, and the standard deviation of that is 1.280.From this data we concluded that the external sensor is not as effective as the oral senor.The p value was 8.83326E^-22, stating that there is nearly a zero percent chance that they are the same. This can be rationalized because the P value we got is less than 0.05

The correlation between the sensor and oral thermometer was .050573103, showing little to no correlation between the two.


Results, Analysis,and Conclusion
The results of the experiment were as follows:
The sensor on the body had an average of 96.137 degrees Fahrenheit and the oral thermometer had an average of 97.566 degrees Fahrenheit. There was a standard deviation of 1.28 degrees for the sensor. There was a standard deviation of .805 degrees for the oral thermometer. The oral thermometer was more accurate with less error than the sensor on the skin. This is due to the fact that the sensor is subject to external temperature change and fluctuates a considerable amount. The oral thermometer isn't subject to external temp. change because it is located inside the body. This is why it is much more accurate. Not only was the sensor less accurate, it also had little to no correlation to the oral thermometer. A correlation coefficient of r=0.02 from the Pearson's Function supports this.

Flaws and Recommendations
Some flaws with the vitals monitor app and sensor include the sensor's inconsistency, issues with the bluetooth connectivity, and issues securing the sensor to the body. (Needed to completely cover the surface with tape). Sensor inconsistency and accuracy occured when the surroundings and environment around the subject changed (colder or hotter environments).
The bluetooth connectivity was on and off at some times, throughout the study the connection would say it was out of range and then come back into range with a reading that was around 0.5 degrees different.
Securing the sensor to the body was a problem, needed to reinforce it with extra tape to make sure it was on the surface of the skin at all times.


Target Population and Need

Our target population will be the parents of children. They will want to keep their child safe and healthy, so we will advertise parents about making sure their child doesn't have high fever if they are sick. The parents can then use their Smart Phone to use our temperature device to keep track of their child's body temperature. They can then send this information directly to their pediatricians for their files on the child. This will save an extra trip to the doctors office for making sure that the child doesn't have a high fever.

Device Design

Since almost everyone has a smart phone we will design an app that goes along with a plug in at the bottom of their device. This device will have a sensor that can read the skin temperature of the patient. It will then feed that information to the app for data collection. The device will have a smooth sensor that rolls across the skin on the forehead. Moving the sensor across the skin of the forehead three times will give you an accurate reading.

Phonometer: Accessibility, Dependability, Every ability


Inferential Statistics Averages---> Sensor:98.83 Thermometer:98.88

Standard Deviation---> Sensor:.401148 Thermometer: .377605888

SET UP: This experiment was set up by monitoring a subject's temperature once every five minutes with the phonometer sensor, as well as with a standard thermometer. 3 temperatures were taken indoors, and 3 were taken outside.