ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of flow control using PID versus fuzzy logic in an electropneumatic circuit for pulmonary ventilation applications.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-tech mechanical ventilators are engineered to deliver precise and consistent airflow, which is critical for effective respiratory therapy. This study evaluates flow control performance in a custom-built electro-pneumatic ventilator prototype, comparing Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) control with Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) through real-time experiments on a test-lung platform to assess accuracy and adaptability under dynamic conditions. A laboratory based experimental study was conducted under laboratory conditions, using a test lung simulator and real-time flow data acquisition. The analysis included time-domain performance metrics and statistical validation through Bland-Altman analysis. Results indicate that both controllers meet the accuracy thresholds expected in commercial systems. However, the fuzzy logic controller exhibited narrower limits of agreement and lower standard deviation, indicating greater consistency. While PID control responded faster, with a settling time between 0.32 and 0.43 seconds, FLC achieved superior performance in high-demand scenarios, delivering an entire volume of 900 mL. Stability analysis using the Jury Test and Nyquist criteria confirmed that both systems are dynamically stable. Notably, the FLC curve in the Nyquist plot remained farther from the critical point (-1, 0j), indicating enhanced robustness against disturbances. These findings suggest that FLC may offer a reliable alternative to PID in nonlinear ventilation scenarios, particularly in resource-constrained environments seeking technological autonomy.
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.