Cargando…
Robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation
Robustness measures the performance of estimation methods when they work under non-ideal conditions. We compared the robustness of artificial neural networks (ANNs) and multilinear fitting (MLF) methods in estimating respiratory system compliance (C (RS)) during mechanical ventilation (MV). Twenty-f...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28243966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-017-1631-0 |
_version_ | 1783264740349313024 |
---|---|
author | Perchiazzi, Gaetano Rylander, Christian Pellegrini, Mariangela Larsson, Anders Hedenstierna, Göran |
author_facet | Perchiazzi, Gaetano Rylander, Christian Pellegrini, Mariangela Larsson, Anders Hedenstierna, Göran |
author_sort | Perchiazzi, Gaetano |
collection | PubMed |
description | Robustness measures the performance of estimation methods when they work under non-ideal conditions. We compared the robustness of artificial neural networks (ANNs) and multilinear fitting (MLF) methods in estimating respiratory system compliance (C (RS)) during mechanical ventilation (MV). Twenty-four anaesthetized pigs underwent MV. Airway pressure, flow and volume were recorded at fixed intervals after the induction of acute lung injury. After consecutive mechanical breaths, an inspiratory pause (BIP) was applied in order to calculate C(RS) using the interrupter technique. From the breath preceding the BIP, ANN and MLF had to compute C(RS) in the presence of two types of perturbations: transient sensor disconnection (TD) and random noise (RN). Performance of the two methods was assessed according to Bland and Altman. The ANN presented a higher bias and scatter than MLF during the application of RN, except when RN was lower than 2% of peak airway pressure. During TD, MLF algorithm showed a higher bias and scatter than ANN. After the application of RN, ANN and MLF maintain a stable performance, although MLF shows better results. ANNs have a more stable performance and yield a more robust estimation of C (RS) than MLF in conditions of transient sensor disconnection. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11517-017-1631-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5603635 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56036352017-10-03 Robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation Perchiazzi, Gaetano Rylander, Christian Pellegrini, Mariangela Larsson, Anders Hedenstierna, Göran Med Biol Eng Comput Original Article Robustness measures the performance of estimation methods when they work under non-ideal conditions. We compared the robustness of artificial neural networks (ANNs) and multilinear fitting (MLF) methods in estimating respiratory system compliance (C (RS)) during mechanical ventilation (MV). Twenty-four anaesthetized pigs underwent MV. Airway pressure, flow and volume were recorded at fixed intervals after the induction of acute lung injury. After consecutive mechanical breaths, an inspiratory pause (BIP) was applied in order to calculate C(RS) using the interrupter technique. From the breath preceding the BIP, ANN and MLF had to compute C(RS) in the presence of two types of perturbations: transient sensor disconnection (TD) and random noise (RN). Performance of the two methods was assessed according to Bland and Altman. The ANN presented a higher bias and scatter than MLF during the application of RN, except when RN was lower than 2% of peak airway pressure. During TD, MLF algorithm showed a higher bias and scatter than ANN. After the application of RN, ANN and MLF maintain a stable performance, although MLF shows better results. ANNs have a more stable performance and yield a more robust estimation of C (RS) than MLF in conditions of transient sensor disconnection. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11517-017-1631-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-02-27 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5603635/ /pubmed/28243966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-017-1631-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Perchiazzi, Gaetano Rylander, Christian Pellegrini, Mariangela Larsson, Anders Hedenstierna, Göran Robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation |
title | Robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation |
title_full | Robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation |
title_fullStr | Robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation |
title_full_unstemmed | Robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation |
title_short | Robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation |
title_sort | robustness of two different methods of monitoring respiratory system compliance during mechanical ventilation |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28243966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-017-1631-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT perchiazzigaetano robustnessoftwodifferentmethodsofmonitoringrespiratorysystemcomplianceduringmechanicalventilation AT rylanderchristian robustnessoftwodifferentmethodsofmonitoringrespiratorysystemcomplianceduringmechanicalventilation AT pellegrinimariangela robustnessoftwodifferentmethodsofmonitoringrespiratorysystemcomplianceduringmechanicalventilation AT larssonanders robustnessoftwodifferentmethodsofmonitoringrespiratorysystemcomplianceduringmechanicalventilation AT hedenstiernagoran robustnessoftwodifferentmethodsofmonitoringrespiratorysystemcomplianceduringmechanicalventilation |