Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Synthesis of Ventilator Dyssynchrony Waveforms using a Hybrid Generative Model and a Lung Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a hybrid pipeline combining the VDLV mathematical lung-ventilator model with GAN and cGAN training can synthesize realistic, diverse pressure and volume waveforms for five types of ventilator dyssynchrony, addressing…

desk verdict A useful but self-referential synthesis pipeline for ventilator dyssynchrony waveforms; the clinical realism claim rests entirely on the authors' own model until external validation appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16462 v1 pith:CTJ7AXG2 submitted 2025-05-22 eess.SP

Sagar Deep Deb , Suvakash Dey , Deepak K. Agrawal This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords ventilatordyssynchronysyntheticwaveformgenerationlungmodelgenerativeadversarialnetworkconditionalGANmechanicalventilationdeformationtimeseriessynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a hybrid generative pipeline, built from a mathematical lung-ventilator model followed by GAN and cGAN training, can produce synthetic pressure and volume waveforms for five types of ventilator dyssynchrony that are realistic enough and diverse enough to serve as training data for automated detection. It argues that the VDLV model reproduces the clinically recognized deformations of auto trigger, flow limited, double trigger, delayed cycling, and early cycling dyssynchrony, and that the cGAN variant reproduces these signatures more precisely than a standard per-class GAN. If correct, this would attack the main bottleneck in ventilator dyssynchrony detection: the scarcity of large, well-annotated clinical waveform datasets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the VD lung ventilator (VDLV) model, a sum of tanh-based periodic rectangular signals whose parameters map onto ventilator settings: $C_P$ corresponds to PEEP, the amplitude terms $A_{p1}$ and $A_{v1}$ to peak inspiratory pressure and tidal volume, the duty-cycle parameters $\beta$ to the I:E ratio, $\theta$ to respiratory rate, and $\gamma$ to inspiratory rise time. Deformation components $f_{p2}$, $f_{p3}$, and $f_{v2}$ add the scoops, bumps, and extra breaths that define each dyssynchrony type. A CNN-based GAN and a class-conditioned cGAN then learn the VDLV-generated distribution and produce new waveform samples, with the cGAN's class labels letting a single model generate all dyssynchrony types at once.

What would settle it

Collect real ICU pressure and volume waveforms with expert-confirmed VD labels, generate corresponding VDLV and cGAN waveforms, and ask blinded clinicians or an automated similarity metric to distinguish real from synthetic; if real and synthetic waveforms are reliably separable, the claim that the pipeline produces clinically realistic VD waveforms is undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the VDLV model, built from periodic rectangular waveforms with added deformation terms, can replicate clinically observable deformations in pressure and volume waveforms for six dyssynchrony types, and that training GAN and cGAN models on VDLV-generated data yields synthetic waveform datasets that are both realistic and diverse. The paper reports that the pressure and volume cGAN models achieve lower mean absolute error, lower dynamic time warping distance, and higher spectral similarity than the standard GANs, with class-conditional generation producing clearly separated waveform clusters. It also claims that a single unified cGAN can generate normal breaths plus all five studied dyssynchrony types in one model, simplifying the creation of annotated training data.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes that the VDLV model's parameter ranges produce waveforms that look like what clinicians actually see in real ICU patients, and the paper never checks this against real patient data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the cGAN outputs are accepted as clinically realistic, they can be used to train and augment VD detection models without the need for manual annotation of real ICU waveforms.
  • A single conditional model generating normal plus five VD types could replace per-class GANs, reducing training cost and enabling balanced, well-annotated synthetic datasets.
  • The reported cGAN improvements over standard GANs suggest class-conditional generation preserves deformation shape and frequency content more faithfully for each VD type.
  • The explicit mapping between VDLV parameters and ventilator settings means future work could condition generation on ventilator mode and settings, supporting mode-specific detection studies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test the paper leaves undone is comparison against real ICU pressure and volume waveforms with expert-confirmed dyssynchrony labels; the paper's current validation is entirely synthetic against synthetic.
  • Because the paper notes auto trigger and double trigger can look similar in airway pressure alone, a practical detector may need flow or esophageal pressure signals to separate these two types.
  • The hand-picked parameter ranges in the training tables were chosen to match textbook schematic deformations; automating parameter search with shape-based matching could extend coverage to rarer or mixed dyssynchrony patterns.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a hybrid synthetic waveform generator for ventilator dyssynchrony (VD) research. The authors extend a previously developed mathematical lung-ventilator model, VDLV, to produce pressure and volume waveforms for normal breathing and five VD types (auto trigger, flow limited, double trigger, delayed cycling, early cycling). They train GAN and cGAN models on VDLV-generated waveforms and evaluate the generated signals using MAE, DTW, and spectral similarity. The paper claims that this approach creates clinically relevant, realistic, and diverse VD waveforms that could improve downstream VD detection. The central evidence is that GAN/cGAN outputs closely match VDLV outputs, supported by qualitative plots, quantitative metrics, and t-SNE visualizations.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the proposed pipeline could address a real bottleneck: the lack of large, well-annotated VD waveform datasets for training machine learning detectors. The manuscript has several strengths: the VDLV model is explicit and reproducible in form; the ventilator-mode and parameter associations in Section 3 are clinically motivated; the GAN and cGAN architectures are described in detail; and the evaluation uses multiple quantitative metrics. However, the clinical significance is entirely contingent on external validation that the manuscript does not provide. The code and dataset are not released, only available upon request, which limits reproducibility. As it stands, the results establish self-consistency between VDLV and the generative models, not clinical realism.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.2, Table 5] The evaluation is circular with respect to the paper's central claim. Section 6.2 explicitly states that the 'real waveforms' used for computing MAE, DTW, and SS are the waveforms produced by the VDLV model. Consequently, the scores in Table 5 measure how well the GAN and cGAN reproduce the VDLV model's outputs, not how well either model reproduces clinically observed patient waveforms. The abstract's claim that the hybrid approach 'effectively creates realistic and diverse VD waveforms' is therefore not supported by the quantitative evaluation as presented.
  2. [Section 7, Tables 3-4] No external validation against real ICU patient waveforms is provided. The VDLV model's parameter ranges in Tables 3 and 4 are manually chosen to reproduce schematic deformations from Figure 1b, and the training set is generated by sampling these ranges. The limitation paragraph in Section 7 admits that 'the generated waveforms need to be validated against real clinical data to confirm their clinical relevance.' This is not a peripheral caveat; it is the load-bearing gap between the reported metrics and the claimed clinical utility. Without such validation, the downstream VD-detection benefit remains speculative.
  3. [Section 7, Table 5] The text claims that 'the cGAN outperformed the standard GAN for all VD waveforms as detailed in Table 5,' but Table 5 contradicts this. For flow-limited pressure waveforms, the cGAN achieves SS=0.612 while the GAN achieves SS=0.712; for delayed-cycling pressure waveforms, the cGAN achieves SS=0.615 while the GAN achieves SS=0.631. The blanket claim should be corrected or qualified, and the interpretation of cases where one metric improves while another worsens should be discussed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 6 and Section 7] The metric is defined as Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) in Equation 19, but Table 6 and the surrounding text repeatedly use 'DWT.' Please make the notation consistent.
  2. [Equations 3-6] The notation 'max B' is used without definition. It appears to denote the maximum over the breath cycle, but this should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Section 2] The sentence 'Since the flow signal can be derived from the volume signal, we do not analyse the flow signal to identify the key VD-related deformations' appears twice, once near the beginning and once near the end of the section.
  4. [Section 5] In the flow-limited volume description, the phrase 'setting γv1 = 100 me' appears to contain a typo; 'me' is likely intended to be a unit such as 'ms' or a numerical value, and the sentence is incomplete.
  5. [Section 7, Figure 9] The t-SNE plots are described as showing 'clear separation between these clusters,' but the real and generated waveforms appear as separate subpopulations in the figure description. Please clarify what the separation implies: if generated and real clusters are distinct, the figure may indicate systematic differences rather than high fidelity.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The clinical-realism claim is a closed loop: VDLV outputs are both the training data and the 'real' reference for the GAN/cGAN metrics, and VDLV's own realism is imported from the authors' prior work rather than tested against patient data.

  1. self definitional [Section 6.2, after Eq. (20)]
    "Here, generated waveforms refer to GAN or cGAN-generated waveforms, while real waveforms refer to the waveforms produced using the VDL V model."

    The GAN/cGAN training set is itself generated by the VDLV model, and the evaluation then defines "real" waveforms to be VDLV outputs. The MAE, DTW, and SS scores in Table 5 therefore measure how well the neural generator reproduces the same mathematical model that produced its training data. Consequently, the conclusion that the hybrid approach creates "realistic" VD waveforms is a self-consistency check: it verifies only that the generator matches VDLV, not that VDLV matches any patient waveform. The paper's own limitation paragraph concedes this gap: "the generated waveforms need to be validated against real clinical data to confirm their clinical relevance." The inference from low MAE to "physiologically relevant signals" is forced only by defining "real" as VDLV.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4, first paragraph]
    "The basic framework of the VDL V model remains the same, and a detailed explanation can be found at [22,23]. Here, we further modify this model to produce clinically relevant VD waveform signals [36]."

    References [22] and [23] are prior papers by the same group, with D.K. Agrawal as a common author. The abstract's load-bearing assertion that VDLV "can accurately replicate clinically observable deformation" is not demonstrated against real ICU waveforms in this manuscript; instead the reader is directed to these self-citations for the model's physiological validity. Since VDLV realism is the premise that licenses using VDLV output as the "real" reference in the GAN/cGAN evaluation, the central clinical claim reduces to a self-citation chain unless those earlier papers independently contain the clinical validation, which the present text does not show.

2 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 7, first paragraph]
    "This is done by randomly selecting parameter values from predefined uniform distributions. These distributions were manually determined to produce physiologically relevant deformations, as detailed in Tables 3 and 4."

    The VDLV training waveforms are produced by hand-selected parameter ranges whose stated target is the schematic deformations of Fig. 1b, which come from prior literature illustrations. The paper then presents these VDLV outputs as "clinically relevant" and uses them as the ground truth for training and evaluating the GAN and cGAN. The "prediction" that the synthetic waveforms are physiologically relevant is therefore an interpolation of the manually prescribed parameter ranges; no real patient waveform is used to set or check those ranges. The manual fit to schematic deformations is effectively renamed as clinical relevance in the abstract and conclusions.

  2. other [Section 7, Limitations paragraph]
    "Finally, the GANs and cGANs models may not fully capture the diversity inherent in VD waveforms. Hence, the generated waveforms need to be validated against real clinical data to confirm their clinical relevance."

    This is the authors' own acknowledgement that the clinical relevance of the generated waveforms has not been tested. It corroborates the closed-loop evaluation: the quantitative metrics use VDLV as "real," and the missing external anchor is real clinical data. Weight: this converts the evaluative overreach from an external reader inference into an acknowledged limitation of the manuscript's central claim, and it should be weighed against any reading that treats the MAE/DTW/SS scores as evidence of clinical validity.

full rationale

The engineering pipeline is self-contained: the GAN and cGAN are trained and evaluated on the same VDLV distribution, so the MAE/DTW/SS numbers are internally consistent reports of distribution matching. That part is not circular. Circularity enters when the paper moves from "GAN reproduces VDLV" to "waveforms are realistic and clinically relevant." Because "real" is defined as VDLV output, Table 5 cannot support the clinical claim. The premise that VDLV itself is clinically realistic is carried by self-citations [22,23] from the same research group and by manually tuned parameter ranges whose target is the Fig. 1b schematic. The limitations paragraph explicitly concedes: "the generated waveforms need to be validated against real clinical data to confirm their clinical relevance." Thus the strongest claims in the abstract and conclusions are not independently established. However, the generative-model comparison itself is a legitimate self-consistency check, and the t-SNE separation results retain independent algorithmic content, so the paper is not entirely vacuous. The score of 6 reflects that the central "realistic" evaluation reduces by construction to self-comparison, while some contributions, such as the cGAN architecture and class-conditional generation, remain independent of that loop.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on a large number of manually chosen VDLV parameters and on the unvalidated assumption that the VDLV model's outputs are clinically representative. The GAN evaluation is closed-loop, using VDLV outputs as ground truth, so no independent evidence links the generated waveforms to real patient data.

free parameters (3)
  • VDLV pressure waveform parameters (Ap1, Ap2, Ap3, alpha_p, beta_p, phi_p, gamma_p) = See Table 3 ranges, e.g., Ap1=15-24, Ap3=0.1-1.2 x Ap1
    Manually chosen to produce the deformations depicted in Fig 1b; not fitted to clinical data.
  • VDLV volume waveform parameters (Av1, Av2, alpha_v, beta_v, phi_v, gamma_v) = See Table 4 ranges, e.g., Av1=200-650, Av2=1-1.2 x Av1
    Manually selected to create volume deformations for normal, auto trigger, and double trigger waveforms.
  • GAN/cGAN training hyperparameters = learning rate 0.002, beta1=0.5, beta2=0.999, batch size 256, 1500 epochs, latent dim 100
    Hand-picked; the epochs choice is based on a trade-off between MAE/DTW/SS and training time (Table 6).
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The tanh-based functional forms in the VDLV model can represent all clinically relevant VD deformation patterns.
    The model is constructed to match schematic waveforms from Fig 1b; no physiological derivation is given for these specific functional forms.
  • domain assumption The manually specified parameter ranges in Tables 3 and 4 capture physiologically relevant variability.
    The ranges are informed by the authors' judgment and prior work, not by distribution fitting to real patient data.
  • domain assumption GAN/cGAN training on VDLV-generated data increases waveform diversity without losing clinical fidelity.
    This is asserted (Section 6) and evaluated only against the VDLV distribution, not against clinical waveforms.
  • standard math Standard GAN convergence and minimax loss properties hold for these signals.
    Uses standard GAN/cGAN formulations from Goodfellow et al. and Mirza and Osindero.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthesis of Ventilator Dyssynchrony Waveforms using a Hybrid Generative Model and a Lung Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CTJ7AXG2

@misc{pith2026250516462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthesis of Ventilator Dyssynchrony Waveforms using a Hybrid Generative Model and a Lung Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CTJ7AXG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16462}
}
read the original abstract

Ventilator dyssynchrony (VD) is often described as a mismatch between a patient breathing effort and the ventilator support during mechanical ventilation. This mismatch is often associated with an increased risk of lung injury and longer hospital stays. The manual VD detection method is unreliable and requires considerable effort from medical professionals. Automating this process requires a computational pipeline that can identify VD breaths from continuous waveform signals. For that, while various machine learning (ML) models have been proposed, their accuracy is often limited due to the unavailability of a large, well-annotated VD waveform dataset. This paper presents a new approach combining mathematical and deep generative models to generate synthetic, clinically relevant VD waveforms. The mathematical model, which we call the VD lung ventilator model (VDLV), can accurately replicate clinically observable deformation in the pressure and volume waveforms. These temporal deformations are hypothesized to be related to specific VD breaths. We leverage the VDLV model to produce training waveform datasets covering normal and various VD breaths. These datasets are further diversified using deep learning models such as Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) and Conditional GAN (cGAN). The performance of both GAN and cGAN models is assessed through quantitative metrics, demonstrating that this hybrid approach effectively creates realistic and diverse VD waveforms. Notably, the pressure and volume cGAN models enable the generation of more precise and targeted VD signals. These improved synthetic waveform datasets have the potential to significantly enhance the accuracy and robustness of VD detection algorithms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The flowchart showing various types of ventilator dyssynchrony (VD) (b) Pictorial representation of VD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic representation of pressure, flow, and volume waveform signals in (a) Volume Control Ventilation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. VDLV model produced pressure and volume VD waveforms: (a) Ineffective trigger, (b) Auto trigger, (c) Flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Proposed architecture of the CNN-based Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) model. The model transitions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantitative metric scores along with computa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sample heterogeneous pressure waveforms representing normal, auto trigger, flow limited, double trigger, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sample heterogeneous normal, double trigger, and auto trigger volume waveforms, produced using the (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: t-SNE plots of the (a) pressure and (b) volume waveforms produced using the VDLV model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Patient–ventilator dyssynchrony in critically ill patients,

    B. De Oliveira, N. Aljaberi, A. Taha, B. Abduljawad, F. Hamed, N. Rahman, and J. Mallat, “Patient–ventilator dyssynchrony in critically ill patients,” Journal of Clinical Medicine , vol. 10, no. 19, p. 4550, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Early detection and classification of patient-ventilator asynchrony using machine learning,

    E. Gao, G. Ristanoski, U. Aickelin, D. Berlowitz, and M. Howard, “Early detection and classification of patient-ventilator asynchrony using machine learning,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine . Springer, 2022, pp. 238–248

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Ventilator dyssynchrony–detection, pathophysiology, and clinical relevance: A narrative review,

    P. D. Sottile, D. Albers, B. J. Smith, and M. M. Moss, “Ventilator dyssynchrony–detection, pathophysiology, and clinical relevance: A narrative review,” Annals of Thoracic Medicine , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 190–198, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Patient–ventilator dyssynchrony in the intensive care unit: A practical approach to diagnosis and management,

    B. Oto, J. Annesi, and R. J. Foley, “Patient–ventilator dyssynchrony in the intensive care unit: A practical approach to diagnosis and management,” Anaesthesia and Intensive Care , vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 86–97, 2021. 11

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Patient-ventilator asynchronies during mechanical ventilation: current knowledge and research priorities,

    C. De Haro, A. Ochagavia, J. L´ opez-Aguilar, S. Fernandez-Gonzalo, G. Navarra-Ventura, R. Magrans, J. Montany` a, and L. Blanch, “Patient-ventilator asynchronies during mechanical ventilation: current knowledge and research priorities,” Inten- sive care medicine experimental , vol. 7, pp. 1–14, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Identifying patient–ventilator asynchrony on a small dataset using image-based transfer learning,

    Q. Pan, M. Jia, Q. Liu, L. Zhang, J. Pan, F. Lu, Z. Zhang, L. Fang, and H. Ge, “Identifying patient–ventilator asynchrony on a small dataset using image-based transfer learning,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 12, p. 4149, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    The development, optimization, and validation of four different machine learning algorithms to identify ventilator dyssynchrony,

    P. D. Sottile, B. Smith, M. Moss, and D. J. Albers, “The development, optimization, and validation of four different machine learning algorithms to identify ventilator dyssynchrony,” medRxiv, pp. 2023–11, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Detection of patient-ventilator asynchrony from mechanical ventilation waveforms using a two-layer long short-term memory neural network,

    L. Zhang, K. Mao, K. Duan, S. Fang, Y. Lu, Q. Gong, F. Lu, Y. Jiang, L. Jiang, W. Fanget al., “Detection of patient-ventilator asynchrony from mechanical ventilation waveforms using a two-layer long short-term memory neural network,” Computers in biology and medicine , vol. 120, p. 103721, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    An interpretable 1d convolutional neural network for detecting patient-ventilator asynchrony in mechanical ventilation,

    Q. Pan, L. Zhang, M. Jia, J. Pan, Q. Gong, Y. Lu, Z. Zhang, H. Ge, and L. Fang, “An interpretable 1d convolutional neural network for detecting patient-ventilator asynchrony in mechanical ventilation,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 204, p. 106057, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Automated detection and classification of patient–ventilator asynchrony by means of machine learning and simulated data,

    T. Bakkes, A. van Diepen, A. De Bie, L. Montenij, F. Mojoli, A. Bouwman, M. Mischi, P. Woerlee, and S. Turco, “Automated detection and classification of patient–ventilator asynchrony by means of machine learning and simulated data,” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine...

    2023

  3. [11]

    A novel application of spectrograms with machine learning can detect patient ventilator dyssynchrony,

    I. Obeso, B. Yoon, D. Ledbetter, M. Aczon, E. Laksana, A. Zhou, R. A. Eckberg, K. Mertan, R. G. Khemani, and R. Wetzel, “A novel application of spectrograms with machine learning can detect patient ventilator dyssynchrony,” Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, vol. 86, p....

    2023

  4. [12]

    A model-based approach to generating annotated pressure support waveforms,

    A. van Diepen, T. H. Bakkes, A. De Bie, S. Turco, R. A. Bouwman, P. H. Woerlee, and M. Mischi, “A model-based approach to generating annotated pressure support waveforms,” Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1739–1752, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,

    F. Zhuang, Z. Qi, K. Duan, D. Xi, Y. Zhu, H. Zhu, H. Xiong, and Q. He, “A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 43–76, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Deep learning modelling techniques: current progress, applications, advantages, and challenges,

    S. F. Ahmed, M. S. B. Alam, M. Hassan, M. R. Rozbu, T. Ishtiak, N. Rafa, M. Mofijur, A. Shawkat Ali, and A. H. Gan- domi, “Deep learning modelling techniques: current progress, applications, advantages, and challenges,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 13 5...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Generating time series data with real valued dc-gan from complex time-frequency domain: Application to ecg synthesis,

    B. Karahoda, “Generating time series data with real valued dc-gan from complex time-frequency domain: Application to ecg synthesis,” IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Gan-skipnet: a solution for data imbalance in cardiac arrhythmia detection using electrocardiogram signals from a benchmark dataset,

    H. M. Rai, J. Yoo, and S. Dashkevych, “Gan-skipnet: a solution for data imbalance in cardiac arrhythmia detection using electrocardiogram signals from a benchmark dataset,” Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 17, p. 2693, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Generative adversarial networks,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, “Generative adversarial networks,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 139–144, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Conditional generative adversarial nets,

    M. Mirza and S. Osindero, “Conditional generative adversarial nets,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1784 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Identifying women with mammographically-occult breast cancer leveraging gan-simulated mammograms,

    J. Lee and R. M. Nishikawa, “Identifying women with mammographically-occult breast cancer leveraging gan-simulated mammograms,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 225–236, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Generative adversarial networks (gans) in medical imaging: Advancements, applications and challenges,

    A. A. Showrov, M. T. Aziz, H. R. Nabil, J. R. Jim, M. M. Kabir, M. Mridha, N. Asai, and J. Shin, “Generative adversarial networks (gans) in medical imaging: Advancements, applications and challenges,” IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    An adversarial learning approach to generate pressure support ventilation waveforms for asynchrony detection,

    L. Hao, T. H. Bakkes, A. van Diepen, N. Chennakeshava, R. A. Bouwman, A. D. B. Dekker, P. Woerlee, F. Mojoli, M. Mischi, Y. Shi et al., “An adversarial learning approach to generate pressure support ventilation waveforms for asynchrony detection,” Computer Methods and Programs...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Quantifiable identification of flow-limited ventilator dyssynchrony with the deformed lung ventilator model,

    D. K. Agrawal, B. J. Smith, P. D. Sottile, G. Hripcsak, and D. J. Albers, “Quantifiable identification of flow-limited ventilator dyssynchrony with the deformed lung ventilator model,” Computers in Biology and Medicine , vol. 173, p. 108349, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A damaged-informed lung ventilator model for ventilator waveforms,

    D. K. Agrawal, B. J. Smith, P. D. Sottile, and D. J. Albers, “A damaged-informed lung ventilator model for ventilator waveforms,” Frontiers in physiology, vol. 12, p. 724046, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Monitoring of patient-ventilator interaction at the bedside,

    M. De Wit, “Monitoring of patient-ventilator interaction at the bedside,” Respiratory care, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 61–72, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Patient-ventilator dyssynchrony: clinical significance and implications for practice,

    K. G. Mellott, M. J. Grap, C. L. Munro, C. N. Sessler, and P. A. Wetzel, “Patient-ventilator dyssynchrony: clinical significance and implications for practice,” Critical care nurse, vol. 29, no. 6, p. 41, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    Mechanical ventilation-induced reverse-triggered breaths: a frequently unrecognized form of neuromechanical cou- pling,

    E. Akoumianaki, A. Lyazidi, N. Rey, D. Matamis, N. Perez-Martinez, R. Giraud, J. Mancebo, L. Brochard, and J.-C. M. Richard, “Mechanical ventilation-induced reverse-triggered breaths: a frequently unrecognized form of neuromechanical cou- pling,” Chest, vol. 143, no. 4, pp. 92...

    2013

  19. [27]

    Reverse triggering: An introduction to diagnosis, management, and pharmacologic implications,

    B. Murray, A. Sikora, J. R. Mock, T. Devlin, K. Keats, R. Powell, and T. Bice, “Reverse triggering: An introduction to diagnosis, management, and pharmacologic implications,” Frontiers in Pharmacology, vol. 13, p. 879011, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Invasive mechanical ventilation,

    L. Brander and A. S. Slutsky, “Invasive mechanical ventilation,” 2008

    2008

  21. [29]

    Classification of ventilator modes: update and proposal for implementation,

    R. L. Chatburn, “Classification of ventilator modes: update and proposal for implementation,” Respiratory care, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 301–323, 2007

    2007

  22. [30]

    Patient-ventilator asynchronies: clinical implications and practical solutions,

    L. Mirabella, G. Cinnella, R. Costa, A. Cortegiani, L. Tullo, M. Rauseo, G. Conti, and C. Gregoretti, “Patient-ventilator asynchronies: clinical implications and practical solutions,” Respiratory Care, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 1751–1766, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Patient–ventilator interactions. implications for clinical management,

    D. Gilstrap and N. MacIntyre, “Patient–ventilator interactions. implications for clinical management,” American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine , vol. 188, no. 9, pp. 1058–1068, 2013. 12

    2013

  24. [32]

    Patient-ventilator dyssynchrony,

    E.-M. Antonogiannaki, D. Georgopoulos, and E. Akoumianaki, “Patient-ventilator dyssynchrony,” Korean journal of critical care medicine, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 307–322, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Patient–ventilator asynchrony during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a multicenter study,

    L. Vignaux, F. Vargas, J. Roeseler, D. Tassaux, A. W. Thille, M. P. Kossowsky, L. Brochard, and P. Jolliet, “Patient–ventilator asynchrony during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a multicenter study,” Intensive care medicine, vol. 35, pp. 840–846, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Classifying different types of double triggering based on airway pressure and flow deflection in mechanically ventilated patients,

    K.-M. Liao, C.-Y. Ou, and C.-W. Chen, “Classifying different types of double triggering based on airway pressure and flow deflection in mechanically ventilated patients,” Respiratory Care, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 460–466, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    Identifying patient-ventilator asynchrony using waveform analysis,

    H. Daniel and I. Ivan, “Identifying patient-ventilator asynchrony using waveform analysis,” Palliat Med Care , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1–6, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Making predictions using poorly identified mathematical models,

    M. J. Simpson and O. J. Maclaren, “Making predictions using poorly identified mathematical models,”Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, vol. 86, no. 7, p. 80, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Double triggering during assisted mechanical ventilation: Is it a controlled, auto-triggered or patient-triggered cycle? reply to c.-w. chen,

    A. W. Thille and L. Brochard, “Double triggering during assisted mechanical ventilation: Is it a controlled, auto-triggered or patient-triggered cycle? reply to c.-w. chen,” Intensive Care Medicine , vol. 33, pp. 744–745, 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    Df-platter: Multi-face heterogeneous deepfake dataset,

    K. Narayan, H. Agarwal, K. Thakral, S. Mittal, M. Vatsa, and R. Singh, “Df-platter: Multi-face heterogeneous deepfake dataset,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 9739–9748

    2023

  31. [39]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,

    S. Ioffe, “Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A machine learning method for automatic detection and classification of patient-ventilator asynchrony,

    T. H. Bakkes, R. J. Montree, M. Mischi, F. Mojoli, and S. Turco, “A machine learning method for automatic detection and classification of patient-ventilator asynchrony,” in 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) ....

    2020

  33. [41]

    Unsupervised gan epoch selection for biomedical data synthesis,

    M. B¨ ohland, R. Bruch, K. L¨ offler, and M. Reischl, “Unsupervised gan epoch selection for biomedical data synthesis,” in Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering , vol. 9, no. 1. De Gruyter, 2023, pp. 467–470

    2023

  34. [42]

    Generative adversarial networks in time series: A systematic literature review,

    E. Brophy, Z. Wang, Q. She, and T. Ward, “Generative adversarial networks in time series: A systematic literature review,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1–31, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Controlled time series generation for automotive software-inthe-loop testing using gans,

    D. Parthasarathy, K. B¨ ackstr¨ om, J. Henriksson, and S. Einarsd´ ottir, “Controlled time series generation for automotive software-inthe-loop testing using gans,” in IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Testing , 2020, pp. 39– 46

    2020

  36. [44]

    Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition,

    H. Sakoe and S. Chiba, “Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition,” IEEE transactions on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 43–49, 1978

    1978

  37. [45]

    Gans conditioning methods: A survey,

    A. Bourou, V. Mezger, and A. Genovesio, “Gans conditioning methods: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15640 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    An analysis of generative adversarial networks and variants for image synthesis on mnist dataset,

    K. Cheng, R. Tahir, L. K. Eric, and M. Li, “An analysis of generative adversarial networks and variants for image synthesis on mnist dataset,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 79, pp. 13 725–13 752, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne.” Journal of machine learning research , vol. 9, no. 11, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    Asynchronies during mechanical ventilation are associated with mortality,

    L. Blanch, A. Villagra, B. Sales, J. Montanya, U. Lucangelo, M. Luj´ an, O. Garc ´ ıa-Esquirol, E. Chac´ on, A. Estruga, J. C. Oliva et al., “Asynchronies during mechanical ventilation are associated with mortality,” Intensive care medicine, vol. 41, pp. 633–641, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Texture unit, texture spectrum, and texture analysis,

    D.-C. He and L. Wang, “Texture unit, texture spectrum, and texture analysis,” IEEE transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 509–512, 1990

    1990

  42. [50]

    Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection,

    N. Dalal and B. Triggs, “Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection,” in 2005 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’05) , vol. 1. Ieee, 2005, pp. 886–893. 13

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.