OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing platform for evaluating the performance of fluid resuscitation control algorithms. The proposed platform is a cyber-physical system that integrates physical devices with computational models and computer-based algorithms. METHODS: The HIL test bed is evaluated against in silico and in vivo data to ensure the hemodynamic variables are appropriately predicted in the proposed platform. The test bed is then used to investigate the performance of two fluid resuscitation control algorithms: a decision table (rule-based) and a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller. RESULTS: The statistical evaluation of test bed indicates that similar results are observed in the HIL test bed, in silico implementation, and the in vivo data, verifying that the HIL test bed can adequately predict the hemodynamic responses. Comparison of the two fluid resuscitation controllers reveals that both controllers stabilized hemodynamic variables over time and had similar speed to efficiently achieve the target level of the hemodynamic endpoint. However, the accuracy of the PID controller was higher than the rule-based for the scenarios tested in the HIL platform. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the potential of the HIL test bed for realistic testing of physiologic controllers by incorporating physical devices with computational models of physiology and disturbances. SIGNIFICANCE: This type of testing enables relatively fast evaluation of physiologic closed-loop control systems to aid in iterative design processes and offers complementary means to existing techniques (e.g., in silico, in vivo, and clinical studies) for testing of such systems against a wide range of disturbances and scenarios.
OBJECTIVE: This paper presents a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing platform for evaluating the performance of fluid resuscitation control algorithms. The proposed platform is a cyber-physical system that integrates physical devices with computational models and computer-based algorithms. METHODS: The HIL test bed is evaluated against in silico and in vivo data to ensure the hemodynamic variables are appropriately predicted in the proposed platform. The test bed is then used to investigate the performance of two fluid resuscitation control algorithms: a decision table (rule-based) and a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller. RESULTS: The statistical evaluation of test bed indicates that similar results are observed in the HIL test bed, in silico implementation, and the in vivo data, verifying that the HIL test bed can adequately predict the hemodynamic responses. Comparison of the two fluid resuscitation controllers reveals that both controllers stabilized hemodynamic variables over time and had similar speed to efficiently achieve the target level of the hemodynamic endpoint. However, the accuracy of the PID controller was higher than the rule-based for the scenarios tested in the HIL platform. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the potential of the HIL test bed for realistic testing of physiologic controllers by incorporating physical devices with computational models of physiology and disturbances. SIGNIFICANCE: This type of testing enables relatively fast evaluation of physiologic closed-loop control systems to aid in iterative design processes and offers complementary means to existing techniques (e.g., in silico, in vivo, and clinical studies) for testing of such systems against a wide range of disturbances and scenarios.
Authors: Ramin Bighamian; Bahram Parvinian; Christopher G Scully; George Kramer; Jin-Oh Hahn Journal: Control Eng Pract Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.475
Authors: George C Kramer; Michael P Kinsky; Donald S Prough; Jose Salinas; Jill L Sondeen; Michelle L Hazel-Scerbo; Charles E Mitchell Journal: J Trauma Date: 2008-04
Authors: Alexandre Joosten; Sean Coeckelenbergh; Amelie Delaporte; Brigitte Ickx; Jean Closset; Thierry Roumeguere; Luc Barvais; Luc Van Obbergh; Maxime Cannesson; Joseph Rinehart; Philippe Van der Linden Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Sumreen U Vaid; Alia Shah; Michael W Michell; Abraham D Rafie; Donald J Deyo; Donald S Prough; George C Kramer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Bahram Parvinian; Pras Pathmanathan; Chathuri Daluwatte; Farid Yaghouby; Richard A Gray; Sandy Weininger; Tina M Morrison; Christopher G Scully Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Christopher G Scully; Chathuri Daluwatte; Nicole R Marques; Muzna Khan; Michael Salter; Jordan Wolf; Christina Nelson; John Salsbury; Perenlei Enkhbaatar; Michael Kinsky; George C Kramer; David G Strauss Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2016-04
Authors: Guy Avital; Eric J Snider; David Berard; Saul J Vega; Sofia I Hernandez Torres; Victor A Convertino; Jose Salinas; Emily N Boice Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-07-18
Authors: Eric J Snider; David Berard; Saul J Vega; Sofia I Hernandez Torres; Guy Avital; Emily N Boice Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) Date: 2022-08-07