Back

Ventilator triggering control with an LSTM-Based Model

Liu, J.; Fan, J.; Deng, Z.; Tang, X.; Zhang, H.; Sharma, A.; Li, Q.; Liang, C.; Wang, A. Y.; Liu, L.; Luo, K.; Liu, H.; Qiu, H.

2026-04-11 respiratory medicine
10.64898/2026.04.10.26350573 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPatient-ventilator synchrony, an essential prerequisite for non-invasive mechanical ventilation, requires an accurate matching of every phase of the respiration between patient and the ventilator. MethodsWe developed a long short-term memory (LSTM)-based model that can predict the inspiratory and expiratory time of the patient. This model consisted of two hidden layers, each with eight LSTM units, and was trained using a dataset of approximately 27000 of 500-ms-long flow signals that captured both inspiratory and expiratory events. ResultsThe LSTM model achieved 97% accuracy and F1 score in the test data, and the average trigger error was less than 2.20%. In the first trial, 10 volunteers were enrolled. In "Compliance" mode, 78.6% of the triggering by the LSTM model was compatible with neuronal respiration, which was higher than Auto-Trak model (74.2%). Auto-Trak model performed marginally better in the modes of pressure support = 5 and 10 cmH2O. Considering the success in the first clinical trial, we further tested the models by including five patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The LSTM model exhibited 60.6% of the triggering in the 33%-box, which is better than 49.0% of Auto-Trak model. And the PVI index of the LSTM model was significantly less than Auto-Trak model (36.5% vs 52.9%). ConclusionsOverall, the LSTM model performed comparable to, or even better than, Auto-Trak model in both latency and PVI index. While other mathematical models have been developed, our model was effectively embedded in the chip to control the triggering of ventilator. Trial registrationApproval Number: 2023ZDSYLL348-P01; Approval Date: 28/09/2023. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR2500097446; Registration Date: 19/02/2025.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 8%
9.1%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.3%
5
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.3%
6
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
7
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
8
Life
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
10
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.0%
12
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
13
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
14
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
15
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
16
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
17
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
18
Respiratory Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
19
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
23
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.7%
25
Clinical and Translational Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy
29 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
27
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%