MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107395735 · doi:10.1101/2020.06.03.20117994

Ozone therapy for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· preprint· en· W3107395735 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Ozone Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointPneumoniaClinical trialOzone therapyHypoxia (environmental)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background There is still no specific treatment strategies for COVID-19 other than supportive management. The potential biological benefits of ozonated autohemotherapy include reduced tissue hypoxia, decreased hypercoagulability, modulated immune function with inhibition of inflammatory mediators, improved phagocytic function, and impaired viral replication. Objective To determine the impact of the use of ozonated blood on time to clinical improvement in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Design A Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trial determined by admittance to the hospital based on bed availability. Setting Internal Medicine ward at Policlinica Ibiza Hospital, Spain. Participants Eighteen patients with COVID-19 infection (laboratory confirmed) severe pneumonia admitted to hospital between 20th March and 19th April 2020. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years-old and 72% (n=13) were male. Intervention Patients admitted to the hospital during the study period were pre-randomized to different beds based on bed availability. Depending on the bed the patient was admitted, the treatment was ozone autohemotherapy or standard treatment. Patients in the therapy arm received ozonated blood twice daily starting on the day of admission for a median of four days. Each treatment involved administration of 200 mL autologous whole blood enriched with 200 mL of oxygen-ozone mixture with a 40 μg/mL ozone concentration. Main Outcomes The primary outcome was time from hospital admission to clinical improvement, which was defined as either hospital discharge or a two-point improvement in clinical status measured on a six-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were clinical improvement measured on the 7th, 14th and 28th day after admission, as well as time to a two-fold reduction in concentrations of C-reactive protein, ferritin, D-dimer and lactate dehydrogenase. Results Nine patients (50%) received ozonated autohemotherapy beginning on the day of admission. Ozonated autohemotherapy was associated with shorter time to clinical improvement (median [IQR]), 7 days [6-10] vs 28 days [8-31], p=0.04) and better outcomes at 14-days (88.8% vs 33.3%, p=0.01). In risk-adjusted analyses, ozonated autohemotherapy was associated with a shorter mean time to clinical improvement (−11.3 days, p=0.04, 95% CI −22.25 to −0.42). Conclusion Ozonated autohemotherapy was associated with a significantly shorter time to clinical improvement in this quasi-randomized controlled trial. Given the small sample size and study design, these results require evaluation in larger randomized controlled trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it