Figure 5

Comparison of the results from the blood flow deficiency algorithm and physician findings. The risk rate calculated for each parameter was stratified by the findings of the medical staff for each patient. A statistically significant difference was seen between the normal and abnormal cases for the pulse wave parameter in Trial 1. Because we noticed that in a clinical setting, there are some cases that are hard to determine as either normal or abnormal, in the next trial, we added follow-up required as an alternative finding for the physician. In Trial 2 (n = 45), a statistically significant difference was seen between the normal and abnormal cases for all three parameters (pulse wave, colour, and temperature). A significant difference was also seen between the neither normal nor abnormal (follow-up required) and the abnormal cases for the pulse wave and temperature parameters.