Adherence to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) has beneficial effects on survival in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and severe hypoxemia at rest. Two landmark trials suggested that these benefits depend on the time of exposure to oxygen. Patients are usually prescribed LTOT for at least 15-18 hours/day. The primary objective of this study was to determine the average daily exposure to supplemental oxygen in patients with severely hypoxemic COPD who were newly prescribed LTOT and the proportion of patients who were adherent to their prescription. The secondary objective was to identify predictors of compliance to LTOT. We performed a retrospective observational study of patients newly registered in a regional home oxygen program in Quebec, Canada, between July 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014. Daily exposure to oxygen was objectively measured from the concentrator's counter clock. From 196 patients registered in the program during the study period, 115 contributed to the analysis. Most patients ( n = 84; 73%) were prescribed oxygen for ≥18 hours/day. Overall, the 115 patients were exposed to home oxygen for 17.8 hours/day; 60% of the patients were compliant according to our definition. Increasing age and ambulatory oxygen utilization predicted adherence to oxygen therapy. Adherence to home oxygen therapy is suboptimal. Behavioral and psychological interventions to improve compliance to LTOT should be investigated.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".