Dose variability of supplemental oxygen therapy with open patient interfaces based on in vitro measurements using a physiologically realistic upper airway model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen therapy is widely used in hospitals and in the home for chronic care. However, there are several fundamental problems with the application of this therapy such that patients are often exposed to arterial oxygen concentrations outside of the intended target range. This paper reports volume-averaged tracheal oxygen concentration measurements (FtO2) from in vitro experiments conducted using a physiologically realistic upper airway model. The goal is to provide data to inform a detailed discussion of the delivered oxygen dose. METHODS: = 2, 4, or 6 l/min. Further experiments were performed to investigate the influence on FtO2 of variation in inspiratory/expiratory ratio, inclusion of an inspiratory or expiratory pause, patient interface selection (e.g. nasal cannula versus a facemask), and rapid breathing patterns in comparison with the baseline measurements. RESULTS: Oxygen concentration measured at the trachea varied by as much as 60% (i.e. from 30.2 to 48.0% of absolute oxygen concentration) for the same oxygen supply flow rate due to variation in simulated breathing pattern. Among the baseline cases, the chief reasons for variation were 1) the influence of variation in tidal volume leading to variable FiO2 and 2) variation in breathing frequency affecting volume of supplemental oxygen delivered through the breath. CONCLUSION: For oxygen administration using open patient interfaces there was variability in the concentration and quantity of oxygen delivered to the trachea over the large range of scenarios studied. Of primary importance in evaluating the oxygen dose is knowledge of the breathing parameters that determine the average inhalation flow rate relative to the oxygen flow rate. Otherwise, the oxygen dose cannot be determined.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".