Affiliations 

  • 1 School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia. Electronic address: Christopher.Ang@monash.edu
  • 2 School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia. Electronic address: chiew.yeong.shiong@monash.edu
  • 3 School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 4 Kulliyah of Medicine, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan, 25200, Malaysia
  • 5 Division of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore
  • 6 Center of Bioengineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Comput Biol Med, 2022 Dec;151(Pt A):106275.
PMID: 36375413 DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106275

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Respiratory mechanics of mechanically ventilated patients evolve significantly with time, disease state and mechanical ventilation (MV) treatment. Existing deterministic data prediction methods fail to comprehensively describe the multiple sources of heterogeneity of biological systems. This research presents two respiratory mechanics stochastic models with increased prediction accuracy and range, offering improved clinical utility in MV treatment.

METHODS: Two stochastic models (SM2 and SM3) were developed using retrospective patient respiratory elastance (Ers) from two clinical cohorts which were averaged over time intervals of 10 and 30 min respectively. A stochastic model from a previous study (SM1) was used to benchmark performance. The stochastic models were clinically validated on an independent retrospective clinical cohort of 14 patients. Differences in predictive ability were evaluated using the difference in percentile lines and cumulative distribution density (CDD) curves.

RESULTS: Clinical validation shows all three models captured more than 98% (median) of future Ers data within the 5th - 95th percentile range. Comparisons of stochastic model percentile lines reported a maximum mean absolute percentage difference of 5.2%. The absolute differences of CDD curves were less than 0.25 in the ranges of 5 

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.