J USTIFICATION OF P ULSE O XIMETER C OSTS FOR P ARAMEDIC P REHOSPITAL P ROVIDERS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential cost savings of decreasing prehospital oxygen utilization by using pulse oximetry to identify those patients who do not require supplemental oxygen. METHODS: A prospective, controlled trial was performed comparing rates of oxygen utilization by paramedics with and without access to pulse oximetry. Consecutive patient encounters over a ten-week period were randomized by day of presentation. Pulse oximeters were made available on alternate days. On those days, patients whose oxygen saturations were less than 95% were treated with supplemental oxygen. RESULTS: The use of pulse oximeters incurred a saving of 0.14 "D"-size oxygen cylinders per call. For the authors' service, this translates to a potential saving of $2,324 (C)/vehicle/year. CONCLUSION: For regions with patient demographics similar to the authors', the initial cost of providing paramedics with pulse oximeters may be offset by savings in oxygen consumption. A formula is provided to allow individual ambulance services to calculate the potential savings for their service.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it