COVID-19: Multiple Diseases Simulating Extreme High-Altitude Exposure? Oxygen Transport Physiology and Scarce Need of Ventilators; Andean Condor’s-Eye-View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critical hypoxia in COVID-19 patients during this pandemic, has taken away many lives all around the globe. The mechanism has been poorly understood and initially, word got around that it was a SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) pneumonia. The atypical images in lung computerized axial tomography (CAT) scans were alarming. This immediately alerted everyone including poor countries to purchase lacking sophisticated ventilator equipment. However, in some countries, even 88% of the patients on ventilators lost their lives. New observations and pathological findings are gradually clarifying the disease. What seems evident is that it is not only one disease but several, with different responses in different countries and different altitudes. The critical hypoxia and «gasping» present in some patients are not totally understood. It was mentioned that it could be like a High-Altitude Pulmonary Edema (HAPE). Hereby, as high-altitude medicine and hypoxia physiology specialists, we compare the pathophysiology with that of high-altitude exposure in order to understand the mechanisms involved. Some differences in lung radiological images along with transmission and viral attack mechanisms are discussed. The oxygen transport triad used at high-altitude can be applied on this pathology in order to propose even the use of erythropoietin (EPO) early in the treatment. The immune system is the most important long-term survival tool, so we suggest a short-term strategy: the use of special Earth open-circuit astronaut-resembling suits with effective outside air filtering re-breathing mechanisms in order to return to work and daily activities, without contamination risk. Thereby, the curve can be flattened without quarantine and the economy could recover.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".