↓ Skip to main content

Automated closed-loop resuscitation of multiple hemorrhages: a comparison between fuzzy logic and decision table controllers in a sheep model

Overview of attention for article published in Disaster and Military Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
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.
Title
Automated closed-loop resuscitation of multiple hemorrhages: a comparison between fuzzy logic and decision table controllers in a sheep model
Published in
Disaster and Military Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40696-016-0029-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole Ribeiro Marques, Brent J. Ford, Muzna N. Khan, Michael Kinsky, Donald J. Deyo, William J. Mileski, Hao Ying, George C. Kramer

Abstract

Hemorrhagic shock is the leading cause of trauma-related death in the military setting. Definitive surgical treatment of a combat casualty can be delayed and life-saving fluid resuscitation might be necessary in the field. Therefore, improved resuscitation strategies are critically needed for prolonged field and en route care. We developed an automated closed-loop control system capable of titrating fluid infusion to a target endpoint. We used the system to compare the performance of a decision table algorithm (DT) and a fuzzy logic controller (FL) to rescue and maintain the mean arterial pressure (MAP) at a target level during hemorrhages. Fuzzy logic empowered the control algorithm to emulate human expertise. We hypothesized that the FL controller would be more effective and more efficient than the DT algorithm by responding in a more rigid, structured way. Ten conscious sheep were submitted to a hemorrhagic protocol of 25 ml/kg over three separate bleeds. Automated resuscitation with lactated Ringer's was initiated 30 min after the first hemorrhage started. The endpoint target was MAP. Group differences were assessed by two-tailed t test and alpha of 0.05. Both groups maintained MAP at similar levels throughout the study. However, the DT group required significantly more fluid than the FL group, 1745 ± 552 ml (42 ± 11 ml/kg) versus 978 ± 397 ml (26 ± 11 ml/kg), respectively (p = 0.03). The FL controller was more efficient than the DT algorithm and may provide a means to reduce fluid loading. Effectiveness was not different between the two strategies. Automated closed-loop resuscitation can restore and maintain blood pressure in a multi-hemorrhage model of shock.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 20%
Researcher 5 20%
Other 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 9 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 7 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,382,391
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Disaster and Military Medicine
#22
of 23 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,363
of 421,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disaster and Military Medicine
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one scored the same or higher as 1 of them.
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 421,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.