MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114790938 · doi:10.1113/jp280769

Silent hypoxaemia in COVID‐19 patients

2020· review· en· W3114790938 on OpenAlexaff
Tatum S. Simonson, Tracy L. Baker, Robert B. Banzett, Tammie Bishop, Jerome A. Dempsey, Jack L. Feldman, Patrice G. Guyenet, Emma J. Hodson, Gordon S. Mitchell, Esteban A. Moya, Brandon Nokes, Jeremy E. Orr, Robert L. Owens, Marc J. Poulin, Jean M. Rawling, Christopher N. Schmickl, Jyoti J. Watters, Magdy Younes, Atul Malhotra

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Presentation (obstetrics)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Respiratory distressHypoxia (environmental)Intensive care medicineRespiratory systemMedicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakDistressCase presentationRespiratory failureCoronavirusHypoxemiaPsychologyPediatricsInternal medicineVirologyAnesthesiaSurgeryOxygenClinical psychologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinical presentation of COVID-19 due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 is highly variable with the majority of patients having mild symptoms while others develop severe respiratory failure. The reason for this variability is unclear but is in critical need of investigation. Some COVID-19 patients have been labelled with 'happy hypoxia', in which patient complaints of dyspnoea and observable signs of respiratory distress are reported to be absent. Based on ongoing debate, we highlight key respiratory and neurological components that could underlie variation in the presentation of silent hypoxaemia and define priorities for subsequent investigation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations93
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207