A Comparison of the OxyArm Oxygen Delivery Device and Standard Nasal Cannulae in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Compare the performance of the OxyArm to that of nasal cannulae in the delivery of supplemental oxygen to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: We tested various oxygen flows with 10 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients who were receiving prescribed supplemental oxygen. Blood oxygen saturation (measured via pulse oximetry [S(pO2)]), was measured with each device, and mean data were compared with paired, 2-sample tests. RESULTS: Mean S(pO2) was equivalent with OxyArm and nasal cannulae for 7 of the 10 subjects, over a range of oxygen flows (2-5 L/min). Mean S(pO2) was higher with the OxyArm with 2 subjects and lower with 1 subject (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The OxyArm maintained stable S(pO2) over the range of oxygen flows studied and at levels equivalent to those maintained by nasal cannulae in 9 of the 10 subjects. The OxyArm does not contact the face and may be ideal for patients on long-term home oxygen therapy.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".