ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2022
An Automated Hardware-in-Loop Testbed for Evaluating Hemorrhagic Shock Resuscitation Controllers.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Controller Logics for Automating Vasopressor Administration Using a Hardware-in-Loop Test Platform.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development of a vasopressor control module for testing hemorrhagic shock resuscitation controllers.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- In Vivo Evaluation of Two Hemorrhagic Shock Resuscitation Controllers with Non-Invasive, Intermittent Sensors.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A GENERATIVE APPROACH TO TESTING THE PERFORMANCE OF PHYSIOLOGICAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS.ASME letters in dynamic systems and control · 2024Article
- Article
- Hardware-in-Loop Comparison of Physiological Closed-Loop Controllers for the Autonomous Management of Hypotension.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a Proportional-Integral-Derivative Controller for Hemorrhage Resuscitation Using a Hardware-in-Loop Test Platform.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hemorrhage remains a leading cause of death, with early goal-directed fluid resuscitation being a pillar of mortality prevention. While closed-loop resuscitation can potentially benefit this effort, development of these systems is resource-intensive, making it a challenge to compare infusion controllers and respective hardware within a range of physiologically relevant hemorrhage scenarios. Here, we present a hardware-in-loop automated testbed for resuscitation controllers (HATRC) that provides a simple yet robust methodology to evaluate controllers. HATRC is a flow-loop benchtop system comprised of multiple PhysioVessels which mimic pressure-volume responsiveness for different resuscitation infusates. Subject variability and infusate switching were integrated for more complex testing. Further, HATRC can modulate fluidic resistance to mimic arterial resistance changes after vasopressor administration. Finally, all outflow rates are computer-controlled, with rules to dictate hemorrhage, clotting, and urine rates. Using HATRC, we evaluated a decision-table controller at two sampling rates with different hemorrhage scenarios. HATRC allows quantification of twelve performance metrics for each controller configuration and scenario, producing heterogeneous results and highlighting the need for controller evaluation with multiple hemorrhage scenarios. In conclusion, HATRC can be used to evaluate closed-loop controllers through user-defined hemorrhage scenarios while rating their performance. Extensive controller troubleshooting using HATRC can accelerate product development and subsequent translation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.