BME100 s2014:T Group5 L3

From OpenWetWare

Jump to: navigation, search
BME 100 Fall 2013 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
Image:BME494_Asu_logo.png

Contents

OUR TEAM

Name: Keerthana Murali
Name: Keerthana Murali
Name: Supreet Kaur
Name: Supreet Kaur
Name: Melissa thomas
Name: Melissa thomas
Name: Stephanie Diiullo
Name: Stephanie Diiullo
Name: Your name
Name: Your name

LAB 3A WRITE-UP

Descriptive Statistics

Temperature:
Oral (Gold Standard) In Lab
Mean: 96.87 degrees Fahrenheit
Standard Deviation: +/-1.78 degrees Fahrenheit
Standard Error: +/-0.15 degrees Fahrenheit

Sensor In Lab
Mean: 97.48 degrees Fahrenheit
Standard Deviation: +/-1.12 degrees Fahrenheit
Standard Error: +/-0.09 degrees Fahrenheit

Oral (Gold Standard) Outside
Mean: 96.42 degrees Fahrenheit
Standard Deviation: +/-1.70 degrees Fahrenheit
Standard Error: +/-0.13 degrees Fahrenheit

Sensor Outside
Mean: 97.51 degrees Fahrenheit
Standard Deviation: +/-1.36 degrees Fahrenheit
Standard Error: +/-0.10 degrees Fahrenheit

Blood Pressure:
Blood Pressure Cuff (Gold Standard) Pre-Walk
Mean: 119.38 mmHg
Standard Deviation:+/-14.81 mmHg
Standard Error: +/-1.67 mmHg

Watch Sensor Pre-Walk
Mean: 113.99 mmHg
Standard Deviation:+/-14.63 mmHg
Standard Error:+/- 1.65 mmHg

Blood Pressure Cuff (Gold Standard) Post-Walk
Mean: 120.49 mmHg
Standard Deviation:+/-18.87 mmHg
Standard Error: +/-1.36 mmHg

Watch Sensor Post-Walk
Mean: 113.40 mmHg
Standard Deviation:+/-13.20 mmHg
Standard Error:+/- 0.95 mmHg

Pulse:
Pulse Ox (Gold Standard) Pre-Walk
Mean: 83.03 beats per minute
Standard Deviation: +/-13.76 beats per minute
Standard Error: +/-1.54 beats per minute

Watch Sensor Pre-Walk
Mean: 81.21 beats per minute
Standard Deviation: +/-10.76 beats per minute
Standard Error: +/-1.20 beats per minute

Pulse Ox (Gold Standard) Post-Walk
Mean: 86.70 beats per minute
Standard Deviation: +/-19.21 beats per minute
Standard Error: +/-1.39 beats per minute

Watch Sensor Post-Walk
Mean: 84.19 beats per minute
Standard Deviation: +/-18.33 beats per minute
Standard Error: +/-1.32 beats per minute




Results

Image:Temp_Avg.jpg

Image:Temp_Pear1.jpg

Image:Temp_Pear2.jpg

Image:BP_Avg.jpg

Image:BP_Pear1.jpg

Image:BP_Pear2.jpg

Image:Pulse_Avg.jpg

Image:Pulse_Pear1.jpg

Image:Pulse_Pear2.jpg

Analysis

We completed a T-Test for all three comparisons because there were two groups for each experiment. The T-Tests are paired because both tests were completed on the same person.

T-Test Results:
Temperature:
In Lab: p value= 0.0001
Outside: p value= 0.0000
Blood Pressure:
Pre-Walk: p value= 0.0123
Post-Walk: p value= 0.0000
Pulse:
Pre-Walk: p value= 0.0677
Post-Walk: p value= 0.0023

This means that there was a significant difference between the temperature and blood pressure reading because the p values were below 0.05. However, for the pre-walk pulse readings the p value was above 0.05 and this means that there was not a significant difference. The fact that there was not a significant difference between the pulse during the pre-walk means that the tested device was working accurately.

We also completed Pearson tests to see the correlation between the two readings. A Pearson r value close to 1 would mean that there was a positive correlation, a value of -1 would mean a negative correlation and a value of 0 would mean no correlation.

Temperature:
In Lab: r value= 0.1740
Outside: r value= -0.0410
Blood Pressure:
Pre-Walk: r value= 0.1923
Post-Walk: r value= 0.3110
Pulse:
Pre-Walk: r value= 0.7718
Post-Walk: r value= 0.8224

Since all of the r values for temperature and blood pressure are very close to zero, it shows that there is no correlation between the device readings for all these comparisons. This infers that the tested devices were not accurate or correlated with the gold standards. This concludes that the devices were giving off faulty readings. The pulse r values were close to 1 which means that the readings were correlated. This again confirms that the pulse readings were similar and the device was more accurate than the others tested.





Summary/Discussion

Temperature:
When we were recording the results we noticed many flaws with the sensor temperature readings. Twice the temperature readings from the sensor jumped from 102 to 94 within the 5 minute interval of walking around. This was not consistent with her reading on the oral temperature and it does not make any logical or natural sense. It seemed like these happened when we went from being outdoors to entering a building. It seems like the flaw is that it is reading skin temperature when can vary by changing locations whereas the oral thermometer was reading internal temperature. Another flaw was the inconvenience and it being uncomfortable to have the sensor under the armpit at all times. We also had issues with the sensor losing connection with the iPhone. The biggest recommendation is to find a way to calculate the temperature based on a more accurate reading than skin temperature. To make it more convenient and also be connected to technology, it should be considered making a temperature sensor that can go in a person's ear since that is a good place to read internal temperature. A possibility is looking into adding a temperature sensor into headphones that go into the ear.

Blood Pressure:
The flaws in the blood pressure watch sensor were that you had to raise your arm to chest level to get an accurate reading. Also, often times it had an error on the screen so it wasn't as reliable as the gold standard blood pressure cuff. Another major flaw is that it is reading your blood pressure off on secondary arteries in your wrist and not the main brachial artery in the arm. Blood pressure varies depending on what location you take it on your body. A recommendation is to make a blood pressure cuff that can go around the bicep that is similar to the one that goes on the wrist. If it could be smaller in width and yet still get the accurate blood pressure reading electronically, I think more people would be interested in that. It would be even better if they could integrate that technology into the current Fit Bit and other fitness trackers that go on the bicep.

Pulse:
The watch sensor had some flaws on reading the accurate pulse. During our experiment, the watch sensor showed that the pulse went from 78 to 131 back to 74 during a 15 minute interval. During this 15 minutes, the group member that was being tested was sitting the entire time with no activity. So again, there was no logical or natural explanation as to why the pulse would almost double then normalize over that time interval. Recommendations for the watch sensor in regards to reading the pulse is calculating the pulse at different times than the blood pressure because the blood pressure and restricting of the arteries will not give accurate reading. Also, the watch sensor was large and cumbersome compared to the pulse ox so it would be good to find a smaller, more effective way to measure pulse.



LAB 3B WRITE-UP

Target Population and Need

We have created Body Beatz, ear phones that measure heart rate. The target population is athletes, people who work out and/or want to lose weight. This is our primary target population because they work out on a regular basis and are concerned about their heart rate. This device easily attaches to any smart phone and monitors heart rate with a sensor in the ear phones that then communicates with a free app. The target population needs this product because the current heart rate monitors on the market require a monitor that is strapped around the body at the heart level and a wearable monitor it communicates with. By putting the heart rate monitor into the ear phones with Body Beatz, consumers will not have to wear additional monitors. Another perk of the device is that it will notify the consumer if their heart rate is above or below the targeted heart rate. This is valuable to the consumer because it allows them to maximize their workout by staying in the targeted heart rate.




Device Design

Body Beatz ear phones

Image:Diagram1.png



Inferential Statistics

Data Set:

Gold Standard
Heart Rate MonitorBody Beatz
(beats per minute)(beats per minute)
7676
8182
7073
7274
9697
98101
8891
6871
8080
98101
9494
6465
9598
6969
6467
6868
8891
8486
9193
7676
7881
6161
6972
8587
8485
9294
9090
6059
10097
6562
10099
8483
6664
6764
9290
7977
6764
6663
9896
6563
6865
7877
6765
8282
8483
8482
9897
9292
6161
8280
6969

Descriptive Statistics:
Heart Rate:
Heart Rate Monitor (Gold Standard)
Mean: 79.47 beats per minute
Standard Deviation: +/-12.36 beats per minute
Standard Error: +/-1.73 beats per minute

Body Beatz
Mean: 79.55 beats per minute
Standard Deviation: +/-12.89 beats per minute
Standard Error: +/-1.81 beats per minute

Inferential Statistics:
T.Test: 0.975
Pearson R: 0.988

The t-test shows that there is no significant difference between the gold standard heart rate monitor and the Body Beatz ear phones. This is true because the t-test value is larger than 0.5. By not showing a significant difference, the Body Beatz device can be considered accurate for measuring heart rate. The pearson r value is close to positive one which means that there is a positive correlation between the gold standard heart rate monitor and the Body Beatz device. This again confirms that the Body Beatz device is accurate and an effective way to measure heart rate.

Graph

Image:BB_Heart_Rate.jpg

Image:BB_Pearson.jpg




Personal tools