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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Perchiazzi, Gaetano, Rylander, Christian, Pellegrini, Mariangela, Larsson, Anders, Hedenstierna, Göran
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