Superiority of OxyMask™ with Less Carbon Dioxide Rebreathing in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the growing importance of oxygen-delivery devices worldwide, there are only a few reports of physiological data on various oxygen masks in children. OxyMask KidTM (Southmedic Inc. Canada; hereafter OxyMask) is expected to reduce carbon dioxide rebreathing even at low oxygen flow rates because of its structural features. Biological data using OxyMask in children have not been well investigated. Measured respiratory parameters of OxyMask with those of a simple oxygen mask in healthy children were compared. Ten subjects were enrolled, with a median age of 5.4 years. All of them used both OxyMask and a simple oxygen mask. The fraction of inspiratory oxygen (FIO2), partial pressure of inspiratory carbon dioxide (PICO2), and partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide were measured using a side-stream gas-sampling monitor in all subjects. The oxygen-flow rate was set at 1, 3, 5, and 10 L/min. FIO2 levels were higher with OxyMask than with the simple oxygen mask at 3L/min of oxygen. PICO2 levels were significantly lower with OxyMask than with the simple oxygen mask (1.5 mmHg vs. 3.7 mmHg at 1 L/min, P = .005; 1.0 mmHg vs. 2.7 mmHg at 3 L/min, P = .005, respectively), whereas PICO2 levels were higher at low oxygen-flow rates with both masks. ConclusionOur results showed that higher FIO2 and less CO2 rebreathing were achieved with OxyMask than with a simple oxygen mask at low-flow rates of oxygen in healthy children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".