BME100 s2017:Group1 W1030AM L3

BME 100 Spring 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
Sole Searchers Symone Griffith Amber Nicole Mani Haylee Holland Jazmine John William Sweeten Tarun Suresh LAB 3 WRITE-UP Descriptive Statistics and Graphs The Spree Band Versus the Pulse OX (Gold Standard): Calculated Mean for Gold Standard: 98.76733333 Calculated Mean for Spree: 99.14666667 Standard Deviation for Gold Standard: 11.3137085 Standard Deviation for Spree: 14.14213562 Performed Pearson Correlation Results: 0.7799565206 Graph of the Calculated Average Heart Rate Reading between the Two Devices: '''The Spree Band Versus the Oral Thermometer (Gold Standard):''' Calculated Mean for Gold Standard: 96.64716049 Calculated Mean for Spree: 95.5308642 Standard Deviation for Gold Standard: 2.510229073 Standard Deviation for Spree: 2.121320344 Performed Pearson Correlation Results: 0.1877987965 Graph of the Calculated Average Temperature Reading between the Two Devices: Inferential Statistics Performed Tests to Analyze the Difference Between the Spree Band and the Pulse OX (Gold Standard): Visual Comparison of Spree Device Tested Against the Pulse XO (Gold Standard) Results: Performed Tests to Analyze the Difference Between the Spree Band and the Oral Thermometer (Gold Standard): Visual Comparison of Spree Device Tested Against the Oral Thermometer (Gold Standard) Results: Design Flaws and Recommendations Experimental Design of Sole Searchers Wedge Device: When designing a potential way to test our shoe wedge we took into consideration that at the ASU campus, Dr. Thurmon Lockhart has a walking apparatus to analyze a persons gate. We will request permission to run data tests so that we can measure the differences in impact and a persons gate both wearing our device and not wearing our device. We want to measure 3 main sections of impact when a person is walking: heel, bridge, and ball, both with and without wearing the supporting device. The audience for our device as of 2013 is described as follows: the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 242,470,820 adults living in the United States. 47% of adults are said to suffer from chronic knee pain. 47% of the 242.4 million adults living in the united states is 113,961,285. Using the 5% figure for revenue prediction, 5% of the 113.9 million is 5,698,064. With an average cost per device at $45, $45 multiplied by 5.7 million is $256,412,892 for our market size/ per year. To create an appropriate sample size for our device, we need to take the total number of people (5,698,064) and use a percentage for testing our device. With such a large number of people affected, we can use about 1-2% of the people as a sample size. With 1% of the people affected being approximately 57,000 and 2% of the 5,698,064 at approximately 114,000 people; we can assume a sample size between 50,000 and 100,000. We could possibly try to break our testing up by age group as well. This may help to see how the results vary for different ages or stages of knee pain.