Usability testing of a prototype Phone Oximeter with healthcare providers in high‐ and low‐medical resource environments*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To increase the use of pulse oximetry by capitalise on the wide availability of mobile phones, we have designed, developed and evaluated a prototype pulse oximeter interfaced to a mobile phone. Usability of this Phone Oximeter was tested as part of a rapid prototyping process. Phase 1 of the study (20 subjects) was performed in Canada. Users performed 23 tasks, while thinking aloud. Time for completion of tasks and analysis of user response to a mobile phone usability questionnaire were used to evaluate usability. Five interface improvements were made to the prototype before evaluation in Phase 2 (15 subjects) in Uganda. The lack of previous pulse oximetry experience and mobile phone use increased median (IQR [range]) time taken to perform tasks from 219 (160-247 [118-274]) s in Phase 1 to 228 (151-501 [111-2661]) s in Phase 2. User feedback was positive and overall usability high (Phase 1--82%, Phase 2--78%).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".