MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Proportional assist ventilation using a disturbance observer and predictive control

2006· article· en· W2536243879 on OpenAlexaff
Kenji Ozaki, Kazutoshi Soga, Yutaka Ishikawa, Seiichi Shin, Seishiro Marukawa, Junko Yamauchi, Magdy Younes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Identification (biology)Model predictive controlObserver (physics)Stability (learning theory)Controller (irrigation)Artificial intelligenceControl (management)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a general control representation for medically-proposed methods of mechanical ventilation, and then proposes an improved configuration with a disturbance observer and with a predictive control block against an existing proportional assist ventilation (PAV) method. The trade-off relation between robust stability margin and responsibility has been shown using parSparinfin- 1in Nyquist diagrams and time-response results with our mechanical ventilator SSV-200 connected to our lung simulator (LUNGOO). Also, a clinical issue of expiratory asynchrony is compared between two methods with the same test construction. The actual clinical tests for these performances will be expected with a next new version of our SSV. We also present on-line identification methods for patient's airway resistance and respiratory compliance which are necessary for implementation of PAV. Animal test results and a few clinical test results of our techniques are also reported for these identification methods

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→