Randomized Trial of Nocturnal Oxygen in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term oxygen therapy improves survival in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic severe daytime hypoxemia. However, the efficacy of oxygen therapy for the management of isolated nocturnal hypoxemia is uncertain. METHODS: We designed this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to determine, in patients with COPD who have nocturnal arterial oxygen desaturation without qualifying for long-term oxygen therapy, whether nocturnal oxygen provided for a period of 3 to 4 years would decrease mortality or the worsening of disease such that patients meet current specifications for long-term oxygen therapy. Patients with an oxygen saturation of less than 90% for at least 30% of the recording time on nocturnal oximetry were assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either nocturnal oxygen or ambient air from a sham concentrator (placebo). The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or a requirement for long-term oxygen therapy as defined by the Nocturnal Oxygen Therapy Trial (NOTT) criteria in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Recruitment was stopped prematurely because of recruitment and retention difficulties after 243 patients, of a projected 600, had undergone randomization at 28 centers. At 3 years of follow-up, 39.0% of the patients assigned to nocturnal oxygen (48 of 123) and 42.0% of those assigned to placebo (50 of 119) met the NOTT-defined criteria for long-term oxygen therapy or had died (difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -15.1 to 9.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our underpowered trial provides no indication that nocturnal oxygen has a positive or negative effect on survival or progression to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with COPD. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; INOX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01044628.).
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".