# Web Applications for Teaching the Respiratory System: Content Validation
## 3 Results
### Anatomy and Physiology Module
#### 3.1.2 Individual Analysis  
A sample with 122 data points was selected to estimate the model's predictive capacity. The \(\hat{V}\) and V\({}_{\rm Tmax}\) were obtained for the experimental data using the subjects' corresponding values of R, C, P\({}_{\rm musc}\), and RR. Figure 6 shows the experimental and predicted data distribution for comparative purposes. According to the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Curve** & **Test** & **Slope** & **Median** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Interquartile** \\ **Range** \\ \end{tabular} & **Data Units** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\Delta\hat{V}\) vs. \(\Delta R\)} & Exp. data & \(-0.01\) & \(-0.12\) & \((-0.28\)–\(0.00)\) & \multirow{4}{*}{L/s} \\  & A \({}^{*}\) & \(-0.05\) & \(-0.44\) & \((-0.85\)—\(0.23)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & B \({}^{*}\) & \(-0.05\) & \(-0.42\) & \((-0.81\)—\(0.22)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & C \({}^{*}\) & \(-0.04\) & \(-0.40\) & \((-0.77\)—\(0.21)\) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\Delta V_{Tmax}\) vs. \(\Delta R\)} & Exp. data & \(-3.89\) & \(-28.87\) & \((-10.08\)–\(111.33)\) & \\  & A & \(-5.85\) & \(-43.17\) & \((-80.78\)—\(12.06)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & B \({}^{*}\) & \(-8.89\) & \(-72.53\) & \((-131.00\)—\(25.20)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & C \({}^{*}\) & \(-11.80\) & \(-105.58\) & \((-181.39\)—\(41.55)\) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\Delta\hat{V}\) vs. \(\Delta C\)} & Exp. data & \(0.00\) & \(0.11\) & \((-0.12\)–\(0.28)\) & \multirow{4}{*}{L/s} \\  & A \({}^{*}\) & \(0.00\) & \(-0.11\) & \((-0.17\)—\(0.06)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & B \({}^{*}\) & \(0.00\) & \(-0.08\) & \((-0.12\)—\(0.04)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & C \({}^{*}\) & \(0.00\) & \(-0.05\) & \((-0.07\)—\(0.03)\) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\Delta V_{Tmax}\) vs. \(\Delta C\)} & Exp. data & \(1.53\) & \(8.86\) & \((-75.35\)–\(136.12)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & A \({}^{*}\) & \(4.55\) & \(170.45\) & \((85.88\)–\(290.27)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & B \({}^{*}\) & \(3.05\) & \(144.09\) & \((73.11\)–\(248.05)\) & \\ \cline{1-1}  & C & \(1.82\) & \(114.28\) & \((55.40\)–\(185.60)\) & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Median, interquartile range, and slope for each dataset in the population analysis for the “Anatomy and Physiology” module. no statistically significant differences were found between each pair of data (\(p\)-value of 0.81 and 0.09 for \(\hat{V}\) and \(\mathrm{V_{Tmax}}\), respectively). Figure 5: Airflow (\(\hat{V}\)) and tidal volume (\(\mathrm{V_{Tmax}}\)) variations to changes in R (graphs I and II) and C (graphs III and IV). Values for \(\hat{V}\) and \(\mathrm{V_{Tmax}}\) are shown as changes regarding the basal value of each subject (i.e., variable values without applying any obstructions). Population curves emphasizing the experimental data are marked in blue. The curves of Tests A, B, and C were constructed using fixed values for C (graphs I and II) and R (graphs III and IV), corresponding to quartiles Q1, Q2, and Q3 of the experimental data. For all tests, \(\mathrm{P_{musc}}\) was set to 8 \(\mathrm{cmH_{2}O}\) and RR to 12 bpm. Solid lines denote the linear fits of each group for (**I**) \(\Delta\hat{V}\) vs. \(\Delta R\); (**II**) \(\Delta V_{Tmax}\) vs. \(\Delta R\); (**III**) \(\Delta\hat{V}\) vs. \(\Delta C\); (**IV**) \(\Delta V_{Tmax}\) vs. \(\Delta C\). Figure 6: Boxplot constructed with the ventilatory parameters of each subject for the (**I**) maximum volume and (**II**) maximum amplitude of the flow. In graphic (I) of Figure 6, the V\({}_{\text{Tmax}}\) prediction describes high similarity in the data distribution; furthermore, the median values differ by 2.85% and the interquartile range differs by 5.93%, which is considered a good prediction. In graphic (II), for \(\hat{V}\), differences between the experimental and predicted median data were similar (2.85% of error). Although \(\hat{V}\) shows differences in the data distribution, it did not show any statistical difference.