Retrospective observational evaluation of the adult in-patient oxygen weaning process and causes for delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In the setting of adult emergency oxygen (O2) use there is currently ample data on its prescription however, there is limited data and a lack of evidence based protocol for its weaning. Aims and objectives: To assess the inpatient O2 weaning process and to provide insights into optimising O2 therapy and understand the delays that can prolong O2 use, hence length of stay (LOS) in hospitals. Method: Data for 32 in-patients, in a large tertiary centre on O2, was collected retrospectively. Inclusion criteria – O2 therapy for more than 48 hours, stable Warning Scores, and O2 saturations within target. Exclusion criteria – patients on ITU, obstetrics, gynaecology and paediatric wards. Data collected - total time taken to wean completely, wean from low flow (FiO2 0.24), delays in initiating wean and potential causes for delay. Results: Nineteen out of 32 patients were included who underwent O2 weaning (4 missing data, 3 deaths, 6 long-term oxygen therapy. Mean – LOS 24 days, days of O2 therapy 11.6 days. Median total wean time (irrespective of initial O2 therapy) - 5 days. Median wean time from FiO2 0.24 - 4 days. Delay in initiating weaning - 0.36 days after patients are deemed suitable. Twelve missed opportunities in weaning, 7 appropriate delays. Any level of O2 wean days vs FiO2 0.24 – 5 vs 4 days. Conclusion: Our data shows weaning time was independent of flow rate. Furthermore, weaning from FiO20.24 takes disproportionately longer and occupies the majority of the wean time. Oxygen weaning clearly has an impact on patient outcome, LOS and the wider health economy. A larger prospective study is required to further consolidate our results.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".