A Comparative Study of 3 Portable Oxygen Concentrators During a 6-Minute Walk Test in Patients With Chronic Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of 3 portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) to maintain S(pO2) ≥ 90% during exercise in patients with chronic lung disease. METHODS: Twenty-one subjects with chronic lung disease (18 with COPD, 3 with pulmonary fibrosis) and documented room air exertional S(pO2) ≤ 85% performed four 6-min walk tests: a control walk using the subject's current oxygen system and prescribed exertional flow rate, and 1 walk with each of the 3 POCs (Eclipse 3, EverGo, and iGo) at their maximum pulse-dose setting. RESULTS: S(pO2) was significantly higher pre-walk and post-walk with the Eclipse 3, compared to the other POCs (all P < .01). The subjects also walked farther and maintained a mean S(pO2) ≥ 90% with the Eclipse 3 (both P < .01), which delivers the largest oxygen bolus. The subjects indicated that they preferred the EverGo's physical characteristics, but that the Eclipse 3 responded best to their breathing. The iGo was rated less favorably than Eclipse 3 or EverGo. CONCLUSIONS: The Eclipse 3 was best at meeting the subjects' clinical needs. POC users should be appropriately tested during all activities of daily living, to ensure adequate oxygenation. The healthcare provider should provide information and help to direct the subject toward the most clinically appropriate oxygen system, while being mindful of the patient's preferences and lifestyle. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01653730).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".