Discrepancies between Arterial Oxygen Saturation and Functional Oxygen Saturation Measured with Pulse Oximetry in Very Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Discrepancies between pulse oximetry saturation (SpO(2)) and arterial saturation (SaO(2)) at low blood oxygenation values have been previously reported with significant variations among instruments and studies. Whether pulse oximeters that attenuate motion artifact are less prone to such discrepancies is not well known. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the agreement of the Masimo V4 pulse oximeter within the critical 85-95% SpO(2) target range. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For all consecutive babies with gestational age <33 weeks, postnatal age <7 days, and an umbilical arterial line, SpO(2) was measured continuously and SaO(2) analyzed on an as-needed basis. Bland-Altman techniques provided estimates of the difference (D = SaO(2) - SpO(2)), standard deviation (SD), and 95% limits of agreement (D ± 2*SD). RESULTS: There were 1,032 measurements (114 babies) with SpO(2) between 85 and 95%. The 95% limits of agreement were -2.0 ± 5.8, -2.4 ± 9.2, and -1.9 ± 5.3 in the SpO(2) categories 85-95, 85-89, and 91-95%, respectively. For the SpO(2) categories 85-89% and 91-95%, only 52% (53/101) and 59% (523/886) of SpO(2) values, respectively, corresponded to the analogous SaO(2) categories. In the 85-89% SpO(2) category, SaO(2) was lower than 85% in 39 of the 101 (39%) measurements. CONCLUSION: SaO(2) was lower on average than SpO(2) with an increased bias at lower saturation. The -2.4 ± 9.2 95% limits of agreement for SaO(2) - SpO(2) in the 85-89% SpO(2) category suggest that SpO(2) and SaO(2) are not interchangeable and intermittent SaO(2) assessments are warranted when the targeted SpO(2) is within this range.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".