Supplemental oxygen therapy recommendations in patients with sickle cell disease during air travel: A cross-sectional survey of North American health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Air travel may expose patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) to an increased risk of disease-related complications. Several factors are felt to contribute including prolonged hypoxia, dehydration, temperature changes, and stress. The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) position statement, published in 2007, recommends that SCD patients use supplemental oxygen on flights. While the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) recommend that SCD patients dress warmly, stay hydrated, and move about the cabin. Other guidelines do not make specific recommendations. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was circulated through the Canadian Hemoglobinopathy Association (CanHaem) and American Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (ASPHO) listservs to North American health care practitioners (HCPs). Participants were asked to share their air travel recommendations for patients with SCD. Similarly, a patient survey regarding experiences with air travel was circulated through the Sickle Cell Disease Association of Canada (SCDAC) and the Sickle Cell Foundation of Alberta (SCFOA) listservs and discussion boards. RESULTS: Although air travel is perceived to be a risk factor for sickling complications, only 18% of HCPs recommend supplemental oxygen. Most HCPs advise patients to increase hydration, carry analgesics, and wear warm clothes to prevent sickling complications. The patient survey was limited by a low response rate. CONCLUSION: The majority of HCPs are not routinely recommending prophylactic oxygen to patients with SCD during air travel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".