MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165503764 · doi:10.1088/1361-6579/ac05d5

The effectiveness of continuous respiratory rate monitoring in predicting hypoxic and pyrexic events: a retrospective cohort study

2021· article· en· W3165503764 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas McCartan, Amy P Worrall, Ruán Ó Conluain, Fátimah Alaya, Christopher Mulvey, Elaine MacHale, Vincent Brennan, Lorna Lombard, Joanne Walsh, Myles Murray, Richard W. Costello, Garrett Greene

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyHazard ratioMedicineProportional hazards modelCohortOxygen saturationRespiratory rateCohort studyEmergency medicineRespiratory systemInternal medicineHeart rateConfidence intervalOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Respiratory rate (RR) is routinely used to monitor patients with infectious, cardiac and respiratory diseases and is a component of early warning scores used to predict patient deterioration. However, it is often measured visually with considerable bias and inaccuracy. Objectives . Firstly, to compare distribution and accuracy of electronically measured RR (EMRR) and visually measured RR (VMRR). Secondly, to determine whether, and how far in advance, continuous electronic RR monitoring can predict oncoming hypoxic and pyrexic episodes in infectious respiratory disease. Approach. A retrospective cohort study analysing the difference between EMRR and VMRR was conducted using patient data from a large tertiary hospital. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine whether continuous, EMRR measurements could predict oncoming hypoxic (SpO 2 < 92%) and pyrexic (temperature >38 °C) episodes. Main results. Data were gathered from 34 COVID-19 patients, from which a total of 3445 observations of VMRR (independent of Hawthorne effect), peripheral oxygen saturation and temperature and 729 117 observations of EMRR were collected. VMRR had peaks in distribution at 18 and 20 breaths per minute. 70.9% of patients would have had a change of treatment during their admission based on the UK’s National Early Warning System if EMRR was used in place of VMRR. An elevated EMRR was predictive of hypoxic (hazard ratio: 1.8 (1.05–3.07)) and pyrexic (hazard ratio: 9.7 (3.8–25)) episodes over the following 12 h. Significance. Continuous EMRR values are systematically different to VMRR values, and results suggest it is a better indicator of true RR as it has lower kurtosis, higher variance, a lack of peaks at expected values (18 and 20) and it measures a physiological component of breathing directly (abdominal movement). Results suggest EMRR is a strong marker of oncoming hypoxia and is highly predictive of oncoming pyrexic events in the following 12 h. In many diseases, this could provide an early window to escalate care prior to deterioration, potentially preventing morbidity and mortality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207