Supplemental oxygen for the management of dyspnea in interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article presents a summary of the evidence relating to supplemental oxygen use for the management of dyspnea in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). RECENT FINDINGS: In contrast to the majority of the available literature, recent findings suggest that supplemental oxygen can significantly reduce exertional dyspnea in ILD. ILD patients' need for supplemental oxygen often surpasses the levels that the most commonly used oxygen delivery systems provide. More effective delivery of supplemental oxygen has the potential for greater relief of dyspnea. There is also evidence suggesting that indications for supplemental oxygen may differ in ILD compared with other chronic lung diseases. SUMMARY: Large clinical trials are needed to determine if the reductions in dyspnea with supplemental oxygen observed in the laboratory setting can translate into meaningful benefits in everyday life for patients with ILD. More effective and practical oxygen delivery systems are needed. Future guidelines should consider including recommendations addressing the potential role of supplemental oxygen for mildly hypoxemic patients with ILD as well as recommendations specific to supplemental oxygen use for exercise training in ILD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".