Development and validation of a mathematical model of heart rate response to fluid perturbation
Open accessAbstract
Physiological closed-loop controlled (PCLC) medical devices monitor and automatically adjust the patient's condition by using physiological variables as feedback, ideally with minimal human intervention to achieve the target levels set by a clinician. PCLC devices present a challenge when it comes to evaluating their performance, where conducting large clinical trials can be expensive. Virtual physiological patients simulated by validated mathematical models can be utilized to obtain pre-clinical evidence of safety and assess the performance of the PCLC medical device during normal and worst-case conditions that are unlikely to happen in a limited clinical trial. A physiological variable that plays a major role during fluid resuscitation is heart rate (HR). For in silico assessment of PCLC medical devices regarding fluid perturbation, there is currently no mathematical model of HR validated in terms of its predictive capability performance. This paper develops and validates a mathematical model of HR response using data collected from sheep subjects undergoing hemorrhage and fluid infusion. The model proved to be accurate in estimating the HR response to fluid perturbation, where averaged between 21 calibration datasets, the fitting performance showed a normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) of [Formula: see text]. The model was also evaluated in terms of model predictive capability performance via a leave-one-out procedure (21 subjects) and an independent validation dataset (6 subjects). Two different virtual cohort generation tools were used in each validation analysis. The generated envelope of virtual subjects robustly met the defined acceptance criteria, in which [Formula: see text] of the testing datasets presented simulated HR patterns that were within a deviation of 50% from the observed data. In addition, out of 16000 and 18522 simulated subjects for the leave-one-out and independent datasets, the model was able to generate at least one virtual subject that was close to the real subject within an error margin of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] NRMSE, respectively. In conclusion, the model can generate valid virtual HR physiological responses to fluid perturbation and be incorporated into future non-clinical simulated testing setups for assessing PCLC devices intended for fluid resuscitation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other approaches to generating virtual cohorts are possible, including variations of the described approaches or a combinatorial approach that constructs N subject-specific virtual patients and then creates synthetic patients.
“Other approaches to generating virtual cohorts are possible, including variations of the above, or others such as [22] which constructs N subject-specific virtual patients and then uses a combinatorial approach to create synthetic patients.”
From Credibility assessment of in silico clinical trials for medical devices (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 10
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [13]Physiological Closed-Loop Controlled Devices. Public Workshop; Request for Comments (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2015).
- [24]Clipp, R. & Scott, G. Humansim: A physiology engine for the simulation of anesthesia/anaphylaxis. In Military Health Research Symposium (2012).
- Authors
- Kanal, V., Pathmanathan, P., Hahn, J.-O., Kramer, G., Scully, C., & Bighamian, R.
- Affiliations
- United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bighamian, Ramin
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2022-12-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21463-21463
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9744837
- OpenAlex
- W4311826196
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Critical Path Initiative
- Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (Grant W81XWH-19-1- 0322)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
- Keywords
- fluid resuscitation, hemorrhage, fluid infusion, sheep, model validation, hemodynamic response
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Heart Rate, Humans, Sheep
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review