BME100 f2017:Group2 W0800 L3

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
BME 100 Fall 2017 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: Che Jimenez
Name: Jordan Harris
Name: Briana Bailey
Name: Zachery Camacho
Name: Your name
Name: Your name


Descriptive Stats and Graph

Temperature: Gold Standard(Oral Thermometer): AVG: 96.6527, SD:1.918463 Spree: AVG: 95.53086, SD:0.870378 P Value:1.85x10^-20(Unpaired), 1.09676x10^-21(Paired) Heart Rate: Gold Standard(Pulse ox): AVG:98.08977, SD: 23.03054 Spree: AVG: 98.94079, SD: 24.83749 P Value: 0.661778(Unpaired), 0.427116(Paired)

Inferential Stats

Correlation Coefficient Temperature: r= 0.439088 Correlation Coefficient Heart Rate: r= 0.831147

The correlation coefficient of both temperature and heart rate both have a positive value. The the Gold Standard and Spree have very similar means at 96.6527 and 95.53086, but the standard deviation is very much different at 1.918463 and 0.870378. However, for heart rate the compared means were more similar than temperature. Heart rate had an average of 98.08977 for Gold Standard and Spree had an average of 98.94079. For the standard deviation Gold Standard has a value of 23.03054 and Spree has a value of 24.83749.

Design Flaws and Recommendations

Based on the correlation coefficients for Temperature there is a slightly positive correlation between both product at a value of r= .439088 . This correlation is a low value, which means that the spree’s ability to detect temperature is ineffective. For heart rate there is is a stronger positive correlation between both products. The Spree product is better at measuring a person's heart rate at a correlation value of r= 0.831147, rather than the temperature. This value means the the spree is pretty decent at measuring heart rate; however, thermometer and the pulse ox are still better than the spree. The spree device is not reliable enough to be taken seriously, and obviously was not run through enough trials to be made effective.

Experimental Design of Own Device

Our prototype does not record numbers, but rather notifies the user if a cut is detected on the foot or if the microwires circuit has been broken. The results should be recorded as a simple detection, or no detection to test accuracy. The sensor in our prototype will sense globulin, serum albumin, and fibrin (factor la). These are proteins that are secreted from blisters, ulcers, and cuts. These proteins are not found in sweat, so that way the sensor cannot detect globulin from the wrong source. Our device will also sense a breakage in the microwires, that are held within the gel. The experiment is going to include the detection from our device, and a gold standard. The gold standard for the detection of proteins is going to be a swab test, and the gold standard for breakage in the microwires is a thorough search by a person from the research lab. After a day of wearing the sock like device, the user will have his/her feet swabbed by a researcher to test for globulin, serum albumin, and fibrin. The gold standard result will be compared to the device’s results. Also, after the end of a day the sock will be evaluated very closely by a researcher. The concluding result will be the gold standard compared to what the device senses. Based on the differences of the results, two correlation graphs can be made comparing the gold standard and our device. Thus, meaning two correlation coefficients will be made. This approach is being taken, because it allows us to compare the reliability and accuracy of the device. This experiment will allow our group to understand the reliability of this device, and whether the user is notified like what was intended when this device was made. If holes are found in our technology, using the problem as a guide, our group will enhance our device to be as accurate as the gold standard if not more.