MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Usability testing of a prototype Phone Oximeter with healthcare providers in high‐ and low‐medical resource environments*

2012· article· en· W1494660667 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsUsabilityMedicineMobile phonePhoneHuman–computer interactionmHealthUsability labMultimediaComputer scienceUsability engineeringNursingTelecommunicationsPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it