Fitness to Fly Testing in Patients with Congenital Heart and Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During commercial air travel passengers are exposed to a low ambient cabin pressure, comparable to altitudes of 5000 to 8000 ft (1524 to 2438 m). In healthy passengers this causes a fall in partial pressure of oxygen, which results in relative hypoxemia, usually without symptoms. Patients with congenital heart or lung disease may experience more severe hypoxemia during air travel. This systematic review provides an overview of the current literature focusing on whether it is safe for patients with congenital heart or lung disease to fly. METHODS: The Pubmed database was searched and all studies carried out at an (simulated) altitude of 5000-8000 ft (1524-2438 m) for a short time period (several hours) and related to patients with congenital heart or lung disease were reviewed. RESULTS: Included were 11 studies. These studies examined patients with cystic fibrosis, neonatal (chronic) lung disease and congenital (a)cyanotic heart disease during a hypoxic challenge test, in a hypobaric chamber, during commercial air travel, or in the mountains. Peripheral/arterial saturation, blood gases, lung function, and/or the occurrence of symptoms were listed. DISCUSSION: Based on the current literature, it can be concluded that air travel is safe for most patients. However, those at risk of hypoxia can benefit from supplemental in-flight oxygen. Therefore, patients with congenital heart and lung disease should be evaluated carefully prior to air travel to select the patients at risk for hypoxia using the current studies and guidelines.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".