Evaluation of the SIMULRESP: A simulation software of child and teenager cardiorespiratory physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Mathematical models based on the physiology when programmed as a software can be used to teach cardiorespiratory physiology and to forecast the effect of various ventilatory support strategies. We developed a cardiorespiratory simulator for children called “SimulResp.” The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of SimulResp. Methods SimulResp quality was evaluated on accuracy, robustness, repeatability, and reproducibility. Blood gas values (pH, PaCO 2 , PaO 2, and SaO 2 ) were simulated for several subjects with different characteristics and in different situations and compared to expected values available as reference. The correlation between reference and simulated data was evaluated by the coefficient of determination and Intraclass correlation coefficient. The agreement was evaluated with the Bland & Altman analysis. Results SimulResp produced healthy child physiological values within normal range (pH 7.40 ± 0.5; PaCO 2 40 ± 5 mmHg; PaO 2 90 ± 10 mmHg; SaO 2 97 ± 3%) starting from a weight of 25−35 kg, regardless of ventilator support. SimulResp failed to simulate accurate values for subjects under 25 kg and/or affected with pulmonary disease and mechanically ventilated. Based on the repeatability was considered as excellent and the reproducibility as mild to good. SimulResp's prediction remains stable within time. Conclusions The cardiorespiratory simulator SimulResp requires further development before future integration into a clinical decision support system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".