Graphical analysis assignment – Jiabao Wu

1. From the Excel spreadsheet of the class results, create graphs comparing the relationship
a.
90
80
Skeletal muscle composition(%)

70
60
50
Skeletal muscle composition
40 compared to BMI
30 Linear (Skeletal muscle composi-
f(x) = − 0.0529793861535272 x + 34.1246481594952 tion compared to BMI)
R² = 0.000391632078616588
20
10
0
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
BMI(kg/m^2)

Figure 1: The relationship between BMI(kg/m2) and skeletal muscle composition(%). This scatter plot
was constructed comparing BMI and skeletal muscle composition obtained from valid measurements
recorded by 3rd year Bachelor of Biomedicine students(n=244). Skeletal muscle composition was
obtained from a body composition monitor. A linear trendline going through the scatterplot had a
negative gradient of -0.053 and an R2 value of 0.0004, this suggests a weak correlation between skeletal
muscle composition and BMI in the participants. Some data were excluded due to human error.

b.
35

30
respiratory rate(breaths/min)

25

20

15 respiratory rate comapred to BMI

f(x) = − 0.027234039820973 x + 15.3544519330069 Linear (respiratory rate comapred
10 R² = 0.000414385258558414 to BMI)

0
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
BMI(kg/m^2)

Figure 2: This scatterplot shows the relationship between respiratory rate(breaths/min) and BMI(kg/m 2).
Each blue dot represents the respiratory rate and BMI data collected from one student in the
biomedicine cohort. The data has a sample size of 239 excludes invalid input from participants. The
respiratory rate was measured from PC Spirometer. A linear trendline crosses the plot with a gradient of
-0.0272 and an R2 value of 0.0004. The significantly small R2 value may suggest a weak negative
correlation between BMI and respiratory rate.

2. Describe quantitatively the results presented in the graphs.

In figure 1, the scatter plot constructed with BMI(kg/m2) and skeletal muscle composition(%)
indicated a weak correlation between them. The data set of these variables were collected from
244 participants. BMI values has a range of 16.2 kg/m2 to 31.3 kg/m2, mean is 22.16 kg/m2.
Skeletal muscle composition was measured by a body composition monitor, ranged from 11.7%
to 80%, and had a mean of 32.95%. The linear regression has a gradient of -0.053 and a very low
correlation coefficient(R2) of 0.0004.

In figure 2, the scatter plot comparing BMI(kg/m2) and respiratory rate(breaths/min) also
suggested a weak correlation. These variables were collected from 239 participants in the
biomedicine cohort. BMI values has a range of 16.2 kg/m2 to 31.3 kg/m2, mean is 22.16 kg/m2.
Respiratory rate was measured by PC Spirometer, ranged from 6 breaths/min to 30.3
breaths/min, and had a mean of 14.75 breaths/min. The linear trendline has a gradient of -
0.0272 and a low correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.0004.

3. Interpret the results presented in the graphs, commenting on any interesting aspects of the
data, and support your explanations with appropriate references to scientific literature.

The linear trendline in figure one suggests there may be a negative correlation between skeletal
muscle composition and BMI. Despite the linear regression indicating a downward trend
between the two variables, the correlation coefficient of 0.0004 is significantly low, which
suggests the trendline does not describe the relationship between BMI and skeletal muscle
composition accurately. The body measurement used for the scatter plot in figure one is
different from the original data set since some participants fail to provide valid readings due to
technical issues. Analysis of this scatter plot indicates that BMI may not be an accurate indicator
of body mass composition. It also has been concluded that BMI works better as an index of
weight excess than body fatness compositions, due to differences in the density of fat, muscle,
and bone (Daniels, 2009). While BMI only concentrates on an individual’s weight and height
ratio.

Analysis of the linear trendline in figure two suggests there may be a negative association
between respiratory rate and BMI. Even though the trendline is slightly downward, the
correlation coefficient of 0.0004 is significantly low, which suggests that there is no certain
association between the two variables obtained from the biomedicine cohort. It may be due to
the limitation of the sample size and age range in the biomedicine cohort. The results is likely to
be improved if the variables are collected from a bigger population with wider age range. Study
has suggested that respiratory rate is closely associated with BMI, in this study, the mean
respiratory rate of obese patients (BMI>=40kg/m2) is 5 to 9 breaths per minute higher than
normal patients (Littleton, 2011).

4. Extract and tabulate data on tobacco smoking

 Smoke Occasionally Ex-smoker Never Tried but No answer
all day smoked never
smoked
UK No. of 2870 1924 44001 71846 0 615
Biobank people(k)

Percentage (%) 2.37 1.59 36.29 59.25 0 0.51

Biomedicine No. of people 3 6 1 221 49 0

cohort

Percentage (%) 1.07 2.14 0.36 78.93 17.5 0

Table 1: This table demonstrates the smoking status from the UK biobank and Biomedicine
cohort. The smoking status is divided into 6 different levels. Each level is represented by the
number of people and its percentage ratio to the sample size. Smoking status for the UK biobank
were collected using Data-coding 496 covering 121256 participants with both sexes. Smoking
status for the biomedicine cohort were obtained through anonymous survey and recorded into
the data set. It covers 280 students in the cohort including both sexes.

5. The smoking status of the two population samples has substantial differences in the percentage
of ex-smokers. For the biomedicine cohort, it had a smaller and narrower population with an
extremely low percentage of ex-smokers. It also has a much higher percentage of people who
never smoked before. These discrepancies in tobacco smoking status can be explained by many
factors, such as age, education level and income. Research shows that people receive higher
education are less likely to develop smoking habits than less educated people and manual
workers (Tomioka, et al., 2020). This can explain the data from Biobank shows a greater
proportion of regular smokers and ex-smokers, since the data was collected from a larger scale
of people with varied education levels. Conversely participants from the biomedicine cohort all
receive tertiary education, this may contribute to its much lower smoking rate than the Biobank
data set.

6. The biomedicine cohort represents only a small portion of the population. However, the
statistics of their responses regarding vaping is very similar to the data obtained by Australian
Bureau of Statistics between 2020 and 2021. 73.48% of the biomedicine cohort had never vaped
and only 1.79% vape daily. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics, 78.3% of people aged
from 18 – 24 had never vaped, 2.2% of them reported vape daily (Anon., 2022). Many factors
can contribute to the discrepancies seen between Biomedicine cohort and broader population.
For example, economical status, peer pressure, education level all has effect on the initiation of
vaping. Peer pressure is likely to be the most relevant factors, findings of a recent study have
demonstrated that peers are the main social influencer and driving force for vaping (Groom, et
al., 2021).
 7. a. When you start vaping, you are not only tasting the appealing flavour of the vaping liquid, but
you are also inhaling a variety of harmful chemicals and fine particles. Firstly, they will put the
health of your lung at risk. For example, aerosols in the vape liquid are tiny solid particles and
when they get into your lung, they will accumulate and can cause long-term irreversible damage
to your lung and respiratory tract, you will likely experience asthma and bronchitis. (McGrath-
Morrow, et al., 2022)It can potentially lead to cancer in your lung if you keep inhaling harmful
substances like aerosols.

b. The nicotine contained in the vaping liquid is also an addictive chemical that can poses harm
to your body systems. It has the potential to cause the narrowing of the arteries and damage
your cardiovascular system, by increasing your heart rate and blood pressure. It is most likely to
give you hypertension and heart disease in the end (McGrath-Morrow, et al., 2022). More than
that, Nicotine can also disrupt normal neurotransmitter function, particularly in the developing
brain. The side effects include mood disorder and permanent lowering of impulse control. This
makes teenagers particularly vulnerable to the nicotine impact.

c. Furthermore, the e-cigarette device itself also poses potential harm to its consumers. Most e-
cigarettes are made of metals or plastics. When the liquid solution is heated in the device, it will
be exposed to the heating element which contains a high amount of heavy metal. The heavy
metal will then be aerosolized and inhaled into your body with the vaporised liquid. If you
inhaled more heavy metal than the daily limit. These heavy metals are toxic and can result in
neuronal damage, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

Bibliography
Anon., 2022. Australian Bureau of Statistics. [Online]
Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/smoking/latest-
release
[Accessed 9 10 2022].

Daniels, S. R., 2009. MD, PhD. The Use of BMI in the Clinical Setting.

Groom, A. L. et al., 2021. The Influence of Friends on Teen Vaping: A Mixed-Methods Approach. Int J
Environ Res Public Health.

Littleton, S. W., 2011. Dr. Impact of obesity on respiratory function.

McGrath-Morrow, S. A. et al., 2022. MD. The Effects of Nicotine on Development.

Tomioka, K., Kurumatani, N. & Saeki, K., 2020. Journal of Epidemiology.