J USTIFICATION OF P ULSE O XIMETER C OSTS FOR P ARAMEDIC P REHOSPITAL P ROVIDERS
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".