METHODS: Data from 275 breaths aggregated from all mechanically ventilated patients at Christchurch Hospital were used in this study. The breath specific respiratory elastance is calculated using a time-varying elastance model. A pressure reconstruction method is proposed to reconstruct pressure waves identified as being affected by SB effort. The area under the curve of the time-varying respiratory elastance (AUC Edrs) are calculated and compared, where unreconstructed waves yield lower AUC Edrs. The difference between the reconstructed and unreconstructed pressure is denoted as a surrogate measure of SB effort.
RESULTS: The pressure reconstruction method yielded a median AUC Edrs of 19.21 [IQR: 16.30-22.47]cmH2Os/l. In contrast, the median AUC Edrs for unreconstructed M-wave data was 20.41 [IQR: 16.68-22.81]cmH2Os/l. The pressure reconstruction method had the least variability in AUC Edrs assessed by the robust coefficient of variation (RCV)=0.04 versus 0.05 for unreconstructed data. Each patient exhibited different levels of SB effort, independent from MV setting, indicating the need for non-invasive, real time assessment of SB effort.
CONCLUSION: A simple reconstruction method enables more consistent real-time estimation of the true, underlying respiratory system mechanics of a SB patient and provides the surrogate of SB effort, which may be clinically useful for clinicians in determining optimal ventilator settings to improve patient care.
METHODS: We first tested ten traditional machine learning algorithms, and then the three-best performing algorithms (three types of SVM) were used in the rest of the study. To improve the performance of these algorithms, a data preprocessing with normalization was carried out. Moreover, a genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization, coupled with stratified 10-fold cross-validation, were used twice: for optimization of classifier parameters and for parallel selection of features.
RESULTS: The presented approach enhanced the performance of all traditional machine learning algorithms used in this study. We also introduced a new optimization technique called N2Genetic optimizer (a new genetic training). Our experiments demonstrated that N2Genetic-nuSVM provided the accuracy of 93.08% and F1-score of 91.51% when predicting CAD outcomes among the patients included in a well-known Z-Alizadeh Sani dataset. These results are competitive and comparable to the best results in the field.
CONCLUSIONS: We showed that machine-learning techniques optimized by the proposed approach, can lead to highly accurate models intended for both clinical and research use.
METHODS: The governing equations of fluid flow have been transformed in the form of ordinary differential equations. These equations have been solved by two methods namely, shooting method and three-stage Lobatto IIIa formula.
RESULTS: The effects of different parameters on temperature, velocity, concentration profiles, skin friction coefficient, Sherwood number, and reduced Nusselt number were obtained and presented graphically. It was noticed that four solutions existed at definite ranges of the parameters for high suction over both surfaces for the first time. The results of the stability analysis revealed that only the first solution is more stable and possess physical reliability compared to the remaining solutions.
CONCLUSION: The graphs also indicated that the fluid velocity decreases as the thermophoresis parameter increases but the opposite behavior observed for both temperature and concentration profiles in the first solution. Furthermore, it was detected that the concentration profile declined at the higher values of the Brownian motion parameter.