Introduction Several different whole-body physiology simulation tools (PST) using modeling techniques are now available with potential use for healthcare simulation, but these novel technologies lack objective analysis from an independent organization. Methods We identified BioGears, HumMod, and Muse as 3 PSTs that met our requirements for testing. We ran mild, moderate, and severe hemorrhage scenarios on each PST and collected outputs for comparison with each other and published human physiology data. Results All PSTs tested followed the expected tachycardic and hypotensive response to hemorrhage for all levels of severity with variable qualitative patterns. Complete data for analysis were not available in all PSTs for urine output, stroke volume, blood volume, hemoglobin, and serum epinephrine concentration, but the partial findings are discussed in detail. We determined the predicted time to reach hemorrhage shock based on the hemorrhage guidelines and compared this with time to cardiovascular collapse from each PST. Overall, the differences from known human physiology were much larger than expected before testing and trends show HumMod with the smallest difference for severe (-6.25%) and moderate (-1.42%) and Muse with the smallest difference for mild hemorrhage (27.9%). BioGears demonstrated the largest differences in all classifications of severity. Conclusions Our analysis of currently available whole-body PSTs provides insight into the novel, evolving field. We hope our efforts shed light to a wider audience to the exciting developments and uses of mathematical modeling for whole-body simulation and the potential for integration into healthcare simulation for medical education.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This research and development project was made possible by a contract vehicle that was awarded and administered by the US Army Medical Research & Materiel Command and the Medical Simulation and Information Sciences Joint Program Committee (Fort Detrick, MD) under award number W81XWH-14-C-0101. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Army and should not be construed as an official US Army position, policy, or decision unless so designated by other documentation.
© 2020 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
- Healthcare simulation
PubMed: MeSH publication types
- Journal Article