MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509190120 · doi:10.2147/copd.s112820

Automated oxygen titration and weaning with FreeO<sub>2</sub> in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD: a pilot randomized trial

2016· article· en· W2509190120 on OpenAlexfundno aff
François Lellouche, Pierre-Alexandre Bouchard, Maude Roberge, Serge Simard, Erwan L’Her, François Maltais, Yves Lacasse

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of COPD · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité LavalAmerican Thoracic Society
KeywordsMedicineHyperoxiaOxygen therapyExacerbationCOPDHypoxemiaAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialOxygen saturationRegimenEmergency medicineOxygenInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We developed a device (FreeO2) that automatically adjusts the oxygen flow rates based on patients' needs, in order to limit hyperoxia and hypoxemia and to automatically wean them from oxygen. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using FreeO2 in patients hospitalized in the respiratory ward for an acute exacerbation of COPD. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing FreeO2 vs manual oxygen titration in the respiratory ward of a university hospital. We measured the perception of appropriateness of oxygen titration and monitoring in both groups by nurses and attending physicians using a Likert scale. We evaluated the time in the target range of oxygen saturation (SpO2) as defined for each patient by the attending physician, the time with severe desaturation (SpO2 <85%), and the time with hyperoxia (SpO2 >5% above the target). We also recorded length of stay, intensive care unit admissions, and readmission rate. Fifty patients were randomized (25 patients in both groups; mean age: 72±8 years; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second: 1.00±0.49 L; and mean initial O2 flow 2.0±1.0 L/min). RESULTS: Nurses and attending physicians felt that oxygen titration and monitoring were equally appropriate with both O2 administration systems. The percentage of time within the SpO2 target was significantly higher with FreeO2, and the time with severe desaturation and hyperoxia was significantly reduced with FreeO2. Time from study inclusion to hospital discharge was 5.8±4.4 days with FreeO2 and 8.4±6.0 days with usual oxygen administration (P=0.051). CONCLUSION: FreeO2 was deemed as an appropriate oxygen administration system by nurses and physicians of a respiratory unit. This system maintained SpO2 at the target level better than did manual titration and reduced periods of desaturation and hyperoxia. Our results also suggest that FreeO2 has the potential to reduce the hospital length of stay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of COPDSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207