MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898599437 · doi:10.1136/bmj.k4169

Oxygen therapy for acutely ill medical patients: a clinical practice guideline

2018· article· en· W2898599437 on OpenAlexaff
Reed Siemieniuk, Derek K. Chu, Lisa Ha-Yeon Kim, Maria-Rosa Güell-Rous, Waleed Alhazzani, Paola M. Soccal, Paul J. Karanicolas, Pauline Darbellay Farhoumand, Jillian L K Siemieniuk, Imran Satia, Elvis M. Irusen, Marwan M. Refaat, J Stephen Mikita, Maureen Smith, Dian Cohen, Per Olav Vandvik, Thomas Agoritsas, Lyubov Lytvyn, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of TorontoAlberta Health ServicesMcMaster UniversityHealth Sciences CentreImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxygen therapyGuidelineIntensive care medicineMedicineClinical PracticeMedical practiceMedical therapyNursingInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

### What you need to know What is the best way to use oxygen therapy for patients with an acute medical illness? A systematic review published in the Lancet in April 2018 found that supplemental oxygen in inpatients with normal oxygen saturation increases mortality.1 Its authors concluded that oxygen should be administered conservatively, but they did not make specific recommendations on how to do it. An international expert panel used that review to inform this guideline. It aims to promptly and transparently translate potentially practice-changing evidence to usable recommendations for clinicians and patients.2 The panel used the GRADE framework and following standards for trustworthy guidelines.3 The panel asked; The panel makes a strong recommendation for maintaining an oxygen saturation of no more than 96% in acutely ill medical patients (upper limit). The panel did not make a recommendation on when to start (the lower limit) for …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.386 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations286
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207