A Mathematical Model of Lung Functionality using Pressure Signal for Volume-Controlled Ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical Ventilation is used to support the respiratory system malfunction by assisting recovery breathing process which could result from diseases and viruses such as pneumonia and COVID-19. Mathematical models are used to study and simulate the respiratory system supported by mechanical ventilation using different modes such as volume-controlled ventilation (VCV). In this research, a single compartment lung model ventilated by VCV is developed during real time mechanical ventilation using pressure signal. This mathematical model describes the lung volume and compliance correctly considering positive end expiration pressure (PEEP) value. The model is implemented using LabVIEW tools and can be used to monitor the volume, flow and compliance as outputs of the model. Two experiments are carried out on the proposed lung model at three input scenarios of volume (400, 500 and 600 ml) for each experiment considering a PEEP value. To validate the model, an artificial lung connected to a VCV with the same scenarios is used. Validation check is conducted by comparing the outputs of the lung model to that of the artificial lung. The experimental results showed that the measured lung model outputs with negative feedback are the same for pressure and flow as the outputs without negative feedback, whereas the measured volume is comparatively lower for negative feedback. Average percent error in the experiment with negative feedback (5.14%) is smaller compared to the experiment without negative feedback (9.28%). Furthermore, the average error of the calculated compliance decreases from 16% (without negative feedback) to 2% (with negative feedback). The obtained results of the proposed method showed good performance and acceptable accuracy. Thus, the model facilitates the clinicians and practitioners as a training tool to learn real-time mechanical ventilation functionalities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".