Development and Testing of a Data Capture Device for Use With Clinical Incentive Spirometers: Testing and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incentive spirometer is a basic and common medical device from which electronic health care data cannot be directly collected. As a result, despite numerous studies investigating clinical use, there remains little consensus on optimal device use and sparse evidence supporting its intended benefits such as prevention of postoperative respiratory complications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to develop and test an add-on hardware device for data capture of the incentive spirometer. METHODS: An add-on device was designed, built, and tested using reflective optical sensors to identify the real-time location of the volume piston and flow bobbin of a common incentive spirometer. Investigators manually tested sensor level accuracies and triggering range calibrations using a digital flowmeter. A valid breath classification algorithm was created and tested to determine valid from invalid breath attempts. To assess real-time use, a video game was developed using the incentive spirometer and add-on device as a controller using the Apple iPad. RESULTS: In user testing, sensor locations were captured at an accuracy of 99% (SD 1.4%) for volume and 100% accuracy for flow. Median and average volumes were within 7.5% (SD 6%) of target volume sensor levels, and maximum sensor triggering values seldom exceeded intended sensor levels, showing a good correlation to placement on 2 similar but distinct incentive spirometer designs. The breath classification algorithm displayed a 100% sensitivity and a 99% specificity on user testing, and the device operated as a video game controller in real time without noticeable interference or delay. CONCLUSIONS: An effective and reusable add-on device for the incentive spirometer was created to allow the collection of previously inaccessible incentive spirometer data and demonstrate Internet-of-Things use on a common hospital device. This design showed high sensor accuracies and the ability to use data in real-time applications, showing promise in the ability to capture currently inaccessible clinical data. Further use of this device could facilitate improved research into the incentive spirometer to improve adoption, incentivize adherence, and investigate the clinical effectiveness to help guide clinical care.
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 | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".