↓ Skip to main content

Control system design for a continuous positive airway pressure ventilator

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Control system design for a continuous positive airway pressure ventilator
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-925x-11-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zheng-Long Chen, Zhao-Yan Hu, Hou-De Dai

Abstract

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) ventilation remains a mainstay treatment for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). Good pressure stability and pressure reduction during exhalation are of major importance to ensure clinical efficacy and comfort of CPAP therapy. In this study an experimental CPAP ventilator was constructed using an application-specific CPAP blower/motor assembly and a microprocessor. To minimize pressure variations caused by spontaneous breathing as well as the uncomfortable feeling of exhaling against positive pressure, we developed a composite control approach including the feed forward compensator and feedback proportional-integral-derivative (PID) compensator to regulate the pressure delivered to OSAS patients. The Ziegler and Nichols method was used to tune PID controller parameters. And then we used a gas flow analyzer (VT PLUS HF) to test pressure curves, flow curves and pressure-volume loops for the proposed CPAP ventilator. The results showed that it met technical criteria for sleep apnea breathing therapy equipment. Finally, the study made a quantitative comparison of pressure stability between the experimental CPAP ventilator and commercially available CPAP devices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 40 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 28%
Student > Master 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 16 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Psychology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 March 2020.
All research outputs
#15,763,321
of 24,960,237 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#397
of 857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,752
of 258,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,960,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 258,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.