High‐flow nasal oxygen vs. standard flow‐rate facemask pre‐oxygenation in pregnant patients: a randomised physiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary High‐flow nasal oxygen has been shown to provide effective pre‐oxygenation and prolong apnoeic time during intubation attempts in non‐pregnant patients. We aimed to compare pre‐oxygenation using high‐flow nasal oxygen (30–70 l.min −1 oxygen flow) via nasal prongs with standard 15 l.min −1 oxygen breathing via a tight‐fitting facemask. Forty healthy parturients were randomly allocated to these two groups, and furthermore each patient underwent the selected pre‐oxygenation method with both 3‐min tidal volume breathing and 30s tidal breathing followed by eight vital capacity breaths. With 3‐min tidal volume breathing, the respective estimated marginal means for high‐flow nasal oxygen and standard flow rate facemask pre‐oxygenation were 87.4% (95% CI 85.5–89.2%) and 91.0% (95% CI 89.3–92.7%), p = 0.02; with eight vital capacity breaths the estimated marginal means were 85.9% (95% CI 84.1–87.7%) and 91.8% (95% CI 90.1–93.4%, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, high‐flow nasal oxygen did not reliably achieve a mean end‐tidal oxygen concentration ≥ 90% compared with the standard flow rate facemask. In this physiological study, high‐flow nasal oxygen pre‐oxygenation performed worse than standard flow rate facemask pre‐oxygenation in healthy term parturients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".