论文标题

通过灵感的正弦波测试来量化肺异质性的潮汐肺模拟

A tidal lung simulation to quantify lung heterogeneity with the Inspired Sinewave Test

论文作者

Tran, Minh C., Crockett, Douglas C., Phan, Phi A., Payne, Stephen J., Farmery, Andrew D.

论文摘要

我们创建了一个肺模拟,以从受启发的正弦波测试(IST)的结果中量化肺异质性。 IST是一种无创,非离子化的肺功能测试,不需要患者的合作。开发了潮汐肺模拟来评估该测试,并提出了一种方法来计算IST结果中的肺异质性。采用基于莫里斯方法和线性回归的灵敏度分析以验证和验证模拟。此外,使用模拟创建了模拟的肺气肿和肺栓塞条件,以评估IST识别这些条件的能力。来自五只猪(预受伤的与受伤)的实验数据用于验证。本文有助于IST的发展。首先,我们的灵敏度分析表明,IST高度准确,低估了约5%的模拟值。灵敏度分析表明,在测试过程中,潮汐体积的不稳定性和极端呼气流量导致IST结果中随机误差。其次,在两个示踪气体振荡频率下获得的IST结果比率可以识别肺异质性(ELV60/ELV180和QP60/QP180)。模拟肺气肿和肺栓塞之间存在差异(p <0:0001)。在动物模型中,对照组的ELV60/ELV180 = 0.58,而受伤的动物中的对照组为0.39(p <0.0001)。

We have created a lung simulation to quantify lung heterogeneity from the results of the inspired sinewave test (IST). The IST is a lung function test that is non-invasive, non-ionising and does not require patients' cooperation. A tidal lung simulation is developed to assess this test and also a method is proposed to calculate lung heterogeneity from IST results. A sensitivity analysis based on the Morris method and linear regression were applied to verify and to validate the simulation. Additionally, simulated emphysema and pulmonary embolism conditions were created using the simulation to assess the ability of the IST to identify these conditions. Experimental data from five pigs (pre-injured vs injured) were used for validation. This paper contributes to the development of the IST. Firstly, our sensitivity analysis reveals that the IST is highly accurate with an underestimation of about 5% of the simulated values. Sensitivity analysis suggested that both instability in tidal volume and extreme expiratory flow coefficients during the test cause random errors in the IST results. Secondly, the ratios of IST results obtained at two tracer gas oscillation frequencies can identify lung heterogeneity (ELV60/ELV180 and Qp60/Qp180). There was dissimilarity between simulated emphysema and pulmonary embolism (p < 0:0001). In the animal model, the control group had ELV60/ELV180 = 0.58 compared with 0.39 in injured animals (p < 0.0001).

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源