Home Oxygen Therapy for Adults with Chronic Lung Disease. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Evidence-based guidelines are needed for effective delivery of home oxygen therapy to appropriate patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD). Methods The multidisciplinary panel created six research questions using a modified Delphi approach. A systematic review of the literature was completed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to formulate clinical recommendations. Recommendations The panel found varying quality and availability of evidence and made the following judgments: 1) strong recommendations for long-term oxygen use in patients with COPD (moderate-quality evidence) or ILD (low-quality evidence) with severe chronic resting hypoxemia, 2) a conditional recommendation against long-term oxygen use in patients with COPD with moderate chronic resting hypoxemia, 3) conditional recommendations for ambulatory oxygen use in patients with COPD (low-quality evidence) or ILD (low-quality evidence) with severe exertional hypoxemia, 4) a conditional recommendation for ambulatory liquid-oxygen use in patients who are mobile outside the home and require >3 L/min of continuous-flow oxygen during exertion (very-low-quality evidence), and 5) a recommendation that patients and their caregivers receive education on oxygen equipment and safety (best-practice statement). Conclusions These guidelines provide the basis for evidence-based use of home oxygen therapy in adults with COPD or ILD but also highlight the need for additional research to guide clinical practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".