Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday March 16 2018, @06:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the i-can-hear-you-now dept.

The peer-reviewed open access journal PLoS ONE describes the validation of a 3D-printed stethoscope which will soon have plans available under a free and open license. The cost to make an entire stethoscope using these plans is estimated to be between $2.5 to $5 USD. The resulting stethoscope apparently functions as well as the market gold standard, the Littmann Cardiology III.

The modern acoustic stethoscope is a useful clinical tool used to detect subtle, pathological changes in cardiac, pulmonary and vascular sounds. Currently, brand-name stethoscopes are expensive despite limited innovations in design or fabrication in recent decades. Consequently, the high cost of high quality, brand name models serves as a barrier to clinicians practicing in various settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries. In this publication, we describe the design and validation of a low-cost open-access (Free/Libre) 3D-printed stethoscope which is comparable to the Littmann Cardiology III for use in low-access clinics.

[...] and the dissemination of plans and bills of material through a Free and open source license.

All the raw data needed to reproduce the analysis, including graphs, figures, and conclusions, are found on Github at https://github.com/GliaX/Stethoscope/tree/master/Testing

From PLoS : Validation of an effective, low cost, Free/open access 3D-printed stethoscope

[Ed: as of posting there is no license on the Github documents. Thus as per the Berne Convention it is not yet freely available, until explicitly published under an open license such as CC or similar. ]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:31AM

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:31AM (#654016) Journal

    That's not reasonable in the case of projects that are PD.

    A statement of being in the public domain is still needed if the project is not hosted on a site which by context proves that the code is in the public domain. The obivous place for such as statement is the usual "LICENSE" file found in all reputable repositories. That would settle the question for everybody involved.

    Public domain should be quite clear but in many cases it is not. Other times source is hard to get at. Take VistA as an example of both. M$ Google-bombed it into oblivion 10+ years ago so if you search for it, look for FOIA VistA instead.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2