You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Method for Control of an Implantable Rotary Blood Pump for Heart Failure Patients Using Noninvasive Measurements
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Artificial Organs, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01268.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Einly Lim, Abdul‐Hakeem H. Alomari, Andrey V. Savkin, Socrates Dokos, John F. Fraser, Daniel L. Timms, David G. Mason, Nigel H. Lovell |
| Abstract |
We propose a deadbeat controller for the control of pulsatile pump flow (Q(p) ) in an implantable rotary blood pump (IRBP). Noninvasive measurements of pump speed and current are used as inputs to a dynamical model of Q(p) estimation, previously developed and verified in our laboratory. The controller was tested using a lumped parameter model of the cardiovascular system (CVS), in combination with the stable dynamical models of Q(p) and differential pressure (head) estimation for the IRBP. The control algorithm was tested with both constant and sinusoidal reference Q(p) as input to the CVS model. Results showed that the controller was able to track the reference input with minimal error in the presence of model uncertainty. Furthermore, Q(p) was shown to settle to the desired reference value within a finite number of sampling periods. Our results also indicated that counterpulsation yields the minimum left ventricular stroke work, left ventricular end diastolic volume, and aortic pulse pressure, without significantly affecting mean cardiac output and aortic pressure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 17 | 52% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2011.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Artificial Organs
#1,626
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,026
of 131,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Artificial Organs
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 131,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.