Development and Testing of Formal Protocols for Oxygen Prescribing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The absence of standardized assessment protocols with well- defined measurement properties limits comparison of outcomes among those receiving long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). We describe simple protocols for a hospital test, a simulated home test, and an actual home test, their reliability and relationship to each other. Stable patients with exercise hypoxemia participated. In 74 patients who completed four exercise tests, correlations between tests ranged from 0.85 to 0.78. Of these 27.0% had the same prescription from all four tests. In 46% prescriptions were within 1 L/ min and in 27% within 2 L/min. During exercise the hospital tests suggested slightly higher oxygen prescriptions than did the simulated home tests (2.5 L/min versus 2.0 L/min, p < 0.001). In 23 patients who participated in actual home assessments, the correlations between the home test, the hospital, and the simulated home tests were 0.22 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.67) and 0.27 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.72). In conclusion, standardizing tests for the assessment of LTOT is important. We describe simple hospital and simulated home tests that are reproducible, easy to carry out, and correlate well with each other.
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 | 0.167 | 0.318 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".