Effect of Oxygen on Health Quality of Life in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Transient Exertional Hypoxemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Ambulatory oxygen improves acute exercise performance in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This improvement may not translate into symptomatic benefit for patients during activities of daily living. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a series of individual randomized controlled trials (N-of-1 RCTs) to measure the effect of oxygen in patients with COPD who do not meet criteria for mortality reduction with long-term oxygen therapy. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients completed blinded N-of-1 RCTs, each comprising three pairs of 2-week home treatment periods, with oxygen provided during one period of each pair and a placebo mixture during the other. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients completed the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, and a home five-minute-walk test at the end of each period. We defined a positive response as a CRQ dyspnea score greater (less dyspnea) on oxygen than placebo during all three pairs of treatment periods, with a difference >or= 0.5 inches for at least two treatment pairs. Oxygen significantly increased the five-minute-walk test (427 vs. 412 steps, p = 0.04). Two of 27 patients met the responder criteria. Among the whole group, neither the CRQ nor the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire showed any statistical or clinical differences between oxygen and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the general application of long-term ambulatory oxygen therapy for patients with COPD who do not meet criteria for mortality reduction with long-term oxygen therapy. N-of-1 RCTs can identify patients who may benefit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".