Once Daily Versus Overnight and Symptom Versus Physiological Monitoring to Detect Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Earlier detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations may facilitate more rapid treatment with reduced risk of hospitalization. Changes in pulse oximetry may permit early detection of exacerbations. We hypothesized that overnight pulse oximetry would be superior to once-daily monitoring for the early detection of exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate whether measuring changes in heart rate and oxygen saturation overnight is superior to once-daily monitoring of both parameters and to assess symptom changes in facilitating earlier detection of COPD exacerbations. METHODS: A total of 83 patients with COPD were randomized to once-daily or overnight pulse oximetry. Both groups completed the COPD assessment test questionnaire daily. The baseline mean and SD for each pulse oximetry variable were calculated from 14 days of stable monitoring. Changes in exacerbation were expressed as Z scores from this baseline. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 70.6 (SD 8.1) years, 52% (43/83) were female, and the mean FEV1 was 53.0% (SD 18.5%) predicted. Of the 83 patients, 27 experienced an exacerbation. Symptoms were significantly elevated above baseline from 5 days before to 12 days after treatment initiation. Day-to-day variation in pulse oximetry during the stable state was significantly less in the overnight group than in the once-daily group. There were greater relative changes at exacerbation in heart rate than oxygen saturation. An overnight composite score of change in heart rate and oxygen saturation changed significantly from 7 days before initiation of treatment for exacerbation and had a positive predictive value for exacerbation of 91.2%. However, this was not statistically better than examining changes in symptoms alone. CONCLUSIONS: Overnight pulse oximetry permits earlier detection of COPD exacerbations compared with once-daily monitoring. Monitoring physiological variables was not superior to monitoring symptoms, and the latter would be a simpler approach, except where there is a need for objective verification of exacerbations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03003702; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03003702.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".