Effect of Oxygen on Sleep and Breathing in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease at Moderate Altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of oxygen on sleep and breathing in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) in Mexico City, at 2,240 m of altitude. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen ILD patients with a mean FVC of 58 +/- 17% pred. (SD) and a mean PaO(2) of 51 +/- 6 mm Hg were recruited from a pulmonary clinic in a tertiary referral center. In addition, 14 normal control subjects, matched for age and gender, were studied. All patients underwent two consecutive full polysomnographies (PSG), one breathing room air and one breathing supplementary oxygen through nasal prongs, in random order. Controls were studied for one night breathing room air. RESULTS: The mean oxygen saturation (SaO(2)) in ILD patients was 82.3 +/- 9.1% during sleep on air and 94.8 +/- 2.9% on oxygen (p < 0.001). In controls it was 92.9 +/- 1.9% (p < 0.001). Sleep efficiency was similar in patients and controls (75 vs. 82%, p > 0.05) and did not change with oxygen (77%). Arousal index was 12.4 +/- 6.9.h(-1) in ILD patients breathing room air and 12.9 +/- 9.1.h(-1) breathing oxygen while in controls it was 11.4 +/- 5.4.h(-1). Breathing frequency (f) during sleep was 24.7 +/- 4.2 in ILD patients and decreased breathing oxygen to 22.5 +/- 3.6 (p < 0.001) but was still higher than in controls (15.6 +/- 2.7; p < 0.001). Similarly, the heart rate (HR) in ILD and controls was 79 +/- 12 and 68 +/- 8, respectively (p < 0.001), and decreased to 68 +/- 4 when patients breathed oxygen (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oxygen substantially decreases HR and f, but does not normalize the f in ILD patients. The impact of hypoxia on sleep efficiency and arousal index was not demonstrable in our patients acclimatized to moderate altitude.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".