Applying Computer Models to Realize Closed-Loop Neonatal Oxygen Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within the context of automating neonatal oxygen therapy, this article describes the transformation of an idea verified by a computer model into a device actuated by a computer model. Computer modeling of an entire neonatal oxygen therapy system can facilitate the development of closed-loop control algorithms by providing a verification platform and speeding up algorithm development. METHODS: In this article, we present a method of mathematically modeling the system's components: the oxygen transport within the patient, the oxygen blender, the controller, and the pulse oximeter. Furthermore, within the constraints of engineering a product, an idealized model of the neonatal oxygen transport component may be integrated effectively into the control algorithm of a device, referred to as the adaptive model. Manual and closed-loop oxygen therapy performance were defined in this article by 3 criteria in the following order of importance: percent duration of SpO2 spent in normoxemia (target SpO2 ± 2.5%), hypoxemia (less than normoxemia), and hyperoxemia (more than normoxemia); number of 60-second periods <85% SpO2 and >95% SpO2; and number of manual adjustments. RESULTS: Results from a clinical evaluation that compared the performance of 3 closed-loop control algorithms (state machine, proportional-integral-differential, and adaptive model) with manual oxygen therapy on 7 low-birth-weight ventilated preterm babies, are presented. Compared with manual therapy, all closed-loop control algorithms significantly increased the patients' duration in normoxemia and reduced hyperoxemia (P < 0.05). The number of manual adjustments was also significantly reduced by all of the closed-loop control algorithms (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the performance of the 3 control algorithms was equivalent, it is suggested that the adaptive model, with its ease of use, may have the best utility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".