Supplementary oxygen for nonhypoxemic patients: O2 much of a good thing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplementary oxygen is routinely administered to patients, even those with adequate oxygen saturations, in the belief that it increases oxygen delivery. But oxygen delivery depends not just on arterial oxygen content but also on perfusion. It is not widely recognized that hyperoxia causes vasoconstriction, either directly or through hyperoxia-induced hypocapnia. If perfusion decreases more than arterial oxygen content increases during hyperoxia, then regional oxygen delivery decreases. This mechanism, and not (just) that attributed to reactive oxygen species, is likely to contribute to the worse outcomes in patients given high-concentration oxygen in the treatment of myocardial infarction, in postcardiac arrest, in stroke, in neonatal resuscitation and in the critically ill. The mechanism may also contribute to the increased risk of mortality in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in which worsening respiratory failure plays a predominant role. To avoid these effects, hyperoxia and hypocapnia should be avoided, with oxygen administered only to patients with evidence of hypoxemia and at a dose that relieves hypoxemia without causing hyperoxia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".