The effectiveness of continuous respiratory rate monitoring in predicting hypoxic and pyrexic events: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".