ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2018
Computer simulated modeling of healthy and diseased right ventricular and pulmonary circulation.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiological Modeling of Hemodynamic Responses to Sodium Nitroprusside.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Semi-mechanistic modelling platform to assess cardiac contractility and haemodynamics in preclinical cardiovascular safety profiling of new molecular entities.British journal of pharmacology · 2020Article
- Closed-loop vasopressor control: in-silico study of robustness against pharmacodynamic variability.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have previously developed a simulated cardiovascular physiology model for in-silico testing and validation of novel closed-loop controllers. To date, a detailed model of the right heart and pulmonary circulation was not needed, as previous controllers were not intended for use in patients with cardiac or pulmonary pathology. With new development of controllers for vasopressors, and looking forward, for combined vasopressor-fluid controllers, modeling of right-sided and pulmonary pathology is now relevant to further in-silico validation, so we aimed to expand our existing simulation platform to include these elements. Our hypothesis was that the completed platform could be tuned and stabilized such that the distributions of a randomized sample of simulated patients' baseline characteristics would be similar to reported population values. Our secondary outcomes were to further test the system in representing acute right heart failure and pulmonary artery hypertension. After development and tuning of the right-sided circulation, the model was validated against clinical data from multiple previously published articles. The model was considered 'tuned' when 100% of generated randomized patients converged to stability (steady, physiologically-plausible compartmental volumes, flows, and pressures) and 'valid' when the means for the model data in each health condition were contained within the standard deviations for the published data for the condition. A fully described right heart and pulmonary circulation model including non-linear pressure/volume relationships and pressure dependent flows was created over a 6-month span. The model was successfully tuned such that 100% of simulated patients converged into a steady state within 30 s. Simulation results in the healthy state for central venous volume (3350 ± 132 ml) pulmonary blood volume (405 ± 39 ml), pulmonary artery pressures (systolic 20.8 ± 4.1 mmHg and diastolic 9.4 ± 1.8 mmHg), left atrial pressure (4.6 ± 0.8 mmHg), PVR (1.0 ± 0.2 wood units), and CI (3.8 ± 0.5 l/min/m
Indexed as
Identifiers
29330837What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.