An in silico analysis of oxygen uptake of a mild COPD patient during rest and exercise using a portable oxygen concentrator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxygen treatment based on intermittent-flow devices with pulse delivery modes available from portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) depends on the characteristics of the delivered pulse such as volume, pulse width (the time of the pulse to be delivered), and pulse delay (the time for the pulse to be initiated from the start of inhalation) as well as a patient's breathing characteristics, disease state, and respiratory morphology. This article presents a physiological-based analysis of the performance, in terms of blood oxygenation, of a commercial POC at different settings using an in silico model of a COPD patient at rest and during exercise. The analysis encompasses experimental measurements of pulse volume, width, and time delay of the POC at three different settings and two breathing rates related to rest and exercise. These experimental data of device performance are inputs to a physiological-based model of oxygen uptake that takes into account the real dynamic nature of gas exchange to illustrate how device- and patient-specific factors can affect patient oxygenation. This type of physiological analysis that considers the true effectiveness of oxygen transfer to the blood, as opposed to delivery to the nose (or mouth), can be instructive in applying therapies and designing new devices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".