# A Visual User Interfaces for Constant Checking of Non-Invasive Physiological Parameters
## 3 Results
### Implementation of the Prototype  
The observation method used in this research was based on the most relevant parameters for each instrument to be used, these being the selected characteristics as Microcontroller (Connectivity; Memory; Compatibility; Availability) and Sensor (Feasibility; Security; Compatibility; Response Time). A valuation table was implemented to better understand the results, as shown in Figure 3.  
Once the evaluation results have been presented based on the observation of each tool used, an explanation for the results shown can be established. As shown in Table 1, the section of the Esp8266 microcontroller was evaluated, which obtained results equivalent to 95% optimization. Connectivity was evaluated as the first parameter for a better understanding of the data, which obtained a score of five points. The information is sent quickly to the server and the app, allowing visualization of the data; however, it is important to point out that this may vary due to the speed of your home internet connection or wherever you are accessing the network from. Data Storage scored four points, given its ability to save data in its flash memory and allow the use of a considerable amount of memory. The third parameter, Compatibility, obtained a score of five points because of its high compatibility with the sensors and thanks to pro-I2C, SPI communication protocols, in addition to its 3.0 to 3.6 v power supply, thus allowing the use of all sensors that work in that range. The fourth and last parameter is availability, which obtained five points for being an easy-to-find microcontroller in Libya. Referring to Table 2, the following section was evaluated, which are the Mlx90614 and Max30100 sensors. They established a 95% optimization result in general; going into more detail, the temperature sensor Mlx90614 has been evaluated as follows: the parameter of Feasibility obtained a score of four points because despite showing great effectiveness in obtaining data, it generates small variations in degrees, correcting itself after a few readings, reducing the margin of error. Security is the second parameter, with a score of five points, since it guarantees the possibility of not having an accident related to electrical connections through the cover that the sensor has. The third parameter, Compatibility, obtained a score of five points for being highly consistent with the Esp8266 microcontroller; this is important because this way, we avoid having any problems in the future. The fourth parameter is Response time, which achieved a score of five points given that it is a sensor used in different areas and tends to read the data in less than a minute. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & \\ \hline Aspects to evaluate & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ \hline connectivity & & & & \(\surd\) \\ \hline Memory & & & \(\surd\) & \\ \hline Compatibility & & & & \(\surd\) \\ \hline Availability & & & & \(\surd\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Esp8266 Evaluation Results. Figure 3: Scalar evaluation for the aspects to be evaluated. Regarding the Max30100 heart rate sensor and oxygen saturation sensor, the same parameters described above were evaluated. The Feasibility parameter obtained a score of four points because the first readings, similarly to temperature, varied, showing low values that went up until reaching real values, reducing the margin of error; this is in accord with a medical oximeter, which does not show very low values. The second parameter is Safety, with a score of five points since it guarantees the possibility of not having an accident relating to connection; it could occur if the person has wet or sweaty hands, but even so, it is still practically imperceptible. The third parameter is Compatibility which obtained a score of five points for being largely compatible with the Esp8266 microcontroller.