Influence of Lightweight Ambulatory Oxygen on Oxygen Use and Activity Patterns of COPD Patients Receiving Long-Term Oxygen Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lightweight ambulatory oxygen devices are provided on the assumptions that they enhance compliance and increase activity, but data to support these assumptions are lacking. We studied 22 patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving long-term oxygen therapy (14 men, average age = 66.9 y, FEV(1) = 33.6%pred, PaO(2) at rest = 51.7 torr) who were using E-cylinders as their portable oxygen. Subjects were recruited at 5 sites and studied over a 2-week baseline period and for 6 months after randomizing them to either continuing to use 22-lb E-cylinders towed on a cart or to carrying 3.6-lb aluminum cylinders. Utilizing novel electronic devices, ambulatory and stationary oxygen use was monitored continuously over the 2 weeks prior to and the 6 months following randomization. Subjects wore tri-axial accelerometers to monitor physical activity during waking hours for 2-3 weeks prior to, and at 3 and 6 months after, randomization. Seventeen subjects completed the study. At baseline, subjects used 17.2 hours of stationary and 2.5 hours of ambulatory oxygen daily. At 6 months, ambulatory oxygen use was 1.4 ± 1.0 hrs in those randomized to E-cylinders and 1.9 ± 2.4 hrs in those using lightweight oxygen (P = NS). Activity monitoring revealed low activity levels prior to randomization and no significant increase over time in either group. In this group of severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, providing lightweight ambulatory oxygen did not increase either oxygen use or activity. Future efforts might focus on strategies to encourage oxygen use and enhance activity in this patient group. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT003257540).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".