A Systematic Review of Oxygen and Airflow Effect on Relief of Dyspnea at Rest in Patients with Advanced Disease of Any Cause
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxygen is used frequently to relieve dyspnea in patients with advanced illness. The objective of this study was to critically appraise the scientific basis for oxygen therapy as a therapeutic intervention to manage dyspnea at rest in patients with advanced disease. A systematic search of all relevant databases was done using MeSH terms and appropriate key words. Both investigators reviewed 294 citations and possible articles were retrieved. Using the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the research question, five articles were found to be relevant to the question. The articles were graded according to the study design and qualitatively compared. No systematic reviews of the intervention exist. Study designs were case series and case control studies. These primary studies had small samples and did not have matched or cohort controls, therefore providing only level 4 evidence. There was only a total of 83 patients and the majority of the patients were hypoxic and already on oxygen. This systematic review and critical appraisal found low-grade scientific evidence that oxygen and airflow improve dyspnea in some patients with advanced disease at rest. However, there is no evidence to identify which patients will benefit from airflow or supplemental oxygen or to determine when to use airflow versus supplemental oxygen. Further research is required to provide scientific evidence to evaluate oxygen and airflow effectiveness and determine the place of oxygen and airflow in the management of dyspnea at rest in patients with advanced disease.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".