BME100 f2017:Group7 W0800 L3

From OpenWetWare
Jump to: navigation, search
Owwnotebook icon.png BME 100 Fall 2017 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
BME494 Asu logo.png


OUR TEAM

Name: Wesley Groves
Name: Miguel Almanza
Name: Michael Zou
Name: Sayyed Ourmazd Mohseni
Name: Abdulmonem Alshammari
Name: Your name

LAB 3 WRITE-UP

Descriptive Stats and Graph

Heart Rate:

Gold Standard Mean: 98.08976898

Gold Standard Standard Deviation: 23.03054395

Spree Mean: 98.95379538

Spree Standard Deviation: 24.97753802

Pearson r Value: 0.690806489

Screen Shot 2017-09-20 at 9.48.56 AM.png

Heart Rate 22.png

Temperature:

Gold Standard Mean: 96.647

Gold Standard Std. Deviation: 1.9226

Spree Mean: 95.531

Spree Standard Deviation: 0.87038

Pearson r value: 0.19280


Mean bar graph w standard dev.png

Scatter with r value correct.png




Inferential Stats

Heart Rate:

T-test value: 0.427116193

Temperature:

T-test: 1.0968 x 10^(-21)




Summaries of Statistical Analyses

Based on the statistical analysis of the heart rate data, there is a high possibility that both devices perform the same. The difference in values recorded by both devices is insignificant in this context due to the fact that the t-test results showed a p-value of higher than 0.05.

The statistical analyses performed for the temperature data said were shown to be significant. The Gold Standard device showed a higher variance than the Spree device, which demonstrates a more precise mechanism of measuring temperature. The paired t-test that was run for this data set demonstrated an extremely low p-value. Such a low p-value indicated statistical significance among these data points.

Design Flaws and Recommendations

One design flaw for this hypothetical experiment was that the body temperature was being taken with an oral thermometer. This method of reading body temperature is not the most accurate way to achieve this data. There are other internal thermometers that would provide a more accurate reading such as an esophageal thermometer. The subjects should have been more closely monitored. The subjects could have tampered with any of the sensors in a way that would make them show invalid data. In the data itself, there were a few blank spaces without readings as well as questionable readings (0 heartrate). Making sure the subjects did not accidentally or purposely tamper with the devices may have made the data more reliable. Also, there were a few outliers in the data set. Specifically, there was a point where the measurement was 0. This indicates that there may have been an error when transcribing / gathering data which will reduce the reliability of the




Experimental Design of Own Device

The experimental design for our device would consist of a large sample of patients who suffer from asthmatic symptoms and severe allergic reactions and also a significant number of people who do not suffer from these health problems as a reference for our data. These patients will be tested against our device and a gold standard for respiratory and cardiac information. Upon acquiring all the data we will calculate the mean and standard deviation to have an accurate perspective of our data. We will use that data to determine the Pearson r value. Then we will use the t-test to verify that our p value is greater than .05, showing that there is no significant difference between the data gathered from our device and the gold standard. This is what we would want ideally since we want our sensors to be as accurate as what’s already in the market.