Key result
Computational model shows inspiratory muscle mechanics render spirometric output largely insensitive to assumption errors.
Why the study?
There were qualitative and quantitative uncertainties in the relation between respiratory neural output and mechanical output that required evaluation of their impact on spirometric output.
Spirometric output in the developed respiratory model is robust against potential errors in assumptions regarding neural-mechanical conversion.
Spirometric outputs appear robust to modeling assumptions; leaves open empirical validation in clinical cohorts.
In the preceding communication we developed a model for the conversion of neural output to mechanical output. We were left with two qualitative uncertainties, namely, the relation between neural output and isometric pressure, and the behavior of inspiratory muscles during expiratory flow; and two quantitative uncertainties concerning the effect of configurational pathway on pressure output, and the slope of the pressure-flow relation. For each of the above uncertainties we made certain assumptions based on indirect evidence but defined reasonable error limits. In the present communication we describe the method of implementing the model and evaluate the significance, in terms of spirometric output, of possible errors in the assumptions. Volume and flow profiles were generated from different neural output profiles. Analysis was repeated when the different assumptions were systematically altered within the limits set by the previous theoretical analysis. We conclude that the pattern of inspiratory muscle activation during spontaneous breathing and the existence of several mechanical interactions within the respiratory system combine to render spirometric output fairly insensitive to most potential errors in our assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riddle et al. (1981) studied Respiratory mechanics. Computational model of respiratory mechanics was evaluated on Spirometric output sensitivity to model assumptions. A computational model demonstrated that inspiratory muscle activation patterns and mechanical interactions render spirometric output fairly insensitive to potential errors in assumptions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: