Feasibility and reliability of an automated controller of inspired oxygen concentration during mechanical ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypoxemia and high fractions of inspired oxygen (FiO2) are concerns in critically ill patients. An automated FiO2 controller based on continuous oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurement was tested. Two different SpO2-FiO2 feedback open loops, designed to react differently based on the level of hypoxemia, were compared. The results of the FiO2 controller were also compared with a historical control group. METHODS: The system measures SpO2, compares with a target range (92% to 96%), and proposes in real time FiO2 settings to maintain SpO2 within target. In 20 patients under mechanical ventilation, two different FiO2-SpO2 open loops were applied by a dedicated research nurse during 3 hours, each in random order. The times spent in and outside the target SpO2 values were measured. The results of the automatic controller were then compared with a retrospective control group of 30 ICU patients. SpO2-FiO2 values of the control group were collected over three different periods of 6 hours. RESULTS: Time in the target range was higher than 95% with the controller. When the 20 patients were separated according to the median PaO2/FiO2 (160(133-176) mm Hg versus 239(201-285)), the loop with the highest slope was slightly better (P = 0.047) for the more-hypoxemic patients. Hyperoxemia and hypoxemia durations were significantly shorter with the controller compared with usual care: SpO2 target range was reached 90% versus 24%, 27% and 32% (P < .001) with the controller, compared with three historical control-group periods. CONCLUSION: A specific FiO2 controller is able to maintain SpO2 reliably within a predefined target range. Two different feedback loops can be used, depending on the initial PaO2/FiO2; with both, the automatic controller showed excellent performance when compared with usual care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".