Linear Modelling of Cerebral Autoregulation System Using Genetic Algorithms

  • Felipe-Andrés Bello Robles
  • Ronney B. Panerai
  • Max Chacón Pacheco
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10657)


Cerebral autoregulation (CA) represents the brain’s capacity to maintain the cerebral blood flow constant, independent of the activities realized by an individual. There are pathologies like Alzheimer, vascular dementia, ischemic stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage and severe brain injury, where a degradation of CA can be found. Despite limited understanding of its physiological basis, assessment of CA is relevant for diagnosis, monitoring and treating some of these pathologies. CA modelling is done by using mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) as input and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) as output; the standard model used is transfer function analysis, although CA has been modelled with support vector machines (SVM) and other methods. In this work a resistive-capacitive model (R-C) is presented where parameters can be estimated from MABP and CBFV signals through Genetic Algorithms (GA), comparing its discrimination capacity against SVM models. Signals from 16 healthy subjects were used with 5 min of spontaneous variations (SV) and 5 min breathing oxygen with 5% of CO2 (hypercapnia). Results show that both models can capture CA and the degradation induced by hypercapnia. Using the autoregulation index (ARI), the R-C model discriminates with a ROC area of 0.89 against 0.72 from SVM, thus representing a promising alternative to assess CA.


Cerebral autoregulation Genetic algorithms R-C model 


  1. 1.
    Newell, D.W., Aaslid, R., Lam, A., Mayberg, T.S., Winn, H.R.: Comparison of flow and velocity during dynamic autoregulation testing in humans. Stroke 25, 305–338 (1994). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Panerai, R.: Assessment of cerebral pressure autoregulation in humans - a review of measurement methods. Physiol. Meas. 19, 305–338 (1998). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Panerai, R., Dawson, S., Potter, J.: Linear and nonlinear analysis of human dynamic cerebral autoregulation. Am. J. Physiol. - Heart Circ. Physiol. 277, 698–705 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tiecks, F., Lam, A., Aaslid, R., Newell, D.: Comparison of static and dynamic cerebral autoregulation measurements. Stroke 26, 1014–1019 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Panerai, R., Dawson, S., Eames, P., Potter, J.: Cerebral blood flow velocity response to induced and spontaneous sudden changes in arterial blood pressure. Am. J. Physiol. 280, 2162–2174 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CAR-NET webpage. Accessed 11 May 2017
  7. 7.
    Czosnyka, M., Smielewski, P., Lavinio, A., Pickard, J., Panerai, R.: An assessment of dynamic autoregulation from spontaneous fluctuations of cerebral blood flow velocity: a comparison of two models, index of autoregulation and mean flow index. Anesth. Analg. 106, 234–239 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chacón, M., Araya, C., Panerai, R.: Non-linear multivariate modeling of cerebral Hemodynamics with autoregressive support vector machines. Med. Eng. Phys. 33, 180–187 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panerai, R.B., Chacon, M., Pereira, R., Evans, D.H.: Neural network modelling of dynamic cerebral autoregulation: assessment and comparison with established methods. Med. Eng. Phys. 26, 43–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tiecks, F.P., Lam, A.M., Aaslid, R., Newell, D.W.: Comparison of static and dynamic cerebral autoregulation measurements. Stroke 26, 1014–1019 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panerai, R.B., Deverson, S.T., Mahony, P., Hayes, P., Evans, D.H.: Effect of CO2 on dynamic cerebral autoregulation measurement. Physiol. Meas. 20, 265–275 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Claassen, J., Meel-van den Abeelen, A., Simpson, D., Panerai, R.B.: Transfer function analysis of dynamic cerebral autoregulation: a white paper from international cerebral autoregulation research network. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 36, 1–16 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gommer, E., Martens, E., Aalten, P., Shijaku, E., Verhey, F., Mess, W., Ramakers, I., Reulen, J.: Dynamic cerebral autoregulation in subject with Alzheimer’s Disease, mild cognitive impairment, and controls: evidence for Increased peripheral vascular resistance with possible predictive value. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. 30, 805–813 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menozzi, R., Piazzi, A., Contini, F.: Small-signal modeling for microwave FET linear circuits based on a genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst.-I: Fundam. Theory Appl. 46, 839–847 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yap, R., Lam, K., Bugayong, R., Hernandez, E., De Guzman, J.: Hardware design and implementation of genetic algorithm for the controller of a DC to DC boost converter. J. Teknol. 78, 117–122 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khalil, N., Ahmed, R., Abul Seoud, R., Soliman, A.: An intelligent technique for generating equivalent gyrator circuits using Genetic Algorithm. Microelectron. J. 46, 1060–1068 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ko, M.: A novel design method of optimizing an indirect forced circulation solar water heating system based on life cycle cost using a genetic algorithm. Energies 8, 11592–11617 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Informatics Engineering DepartmentUniversidad de Santiago de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Cardiovascular Sciences DepartmentUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations