“Friend or Foe” — Oxygen Therapy for COVID-19 patients, a New Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In late December 2019, a disease known as Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), later known to be caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was first reported from Wuhan, China. In an unprecedented event, this highly contagious disease would become a global pandemic. The hospitalized patients are being treated mainly for a typical viral pneumonia with supplemental oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilation. This treatment ought to be helpful for COVID-19 patients, but the clinical outcomes are, thus far, not very promising. Therefore, there is an urgent need of new insights towards the pathophysiology of COVID-19 leading to the basis for better and more effective treatments. Recent research hints that SARS-CoV-2 may impair hemoglobin’s ability to perform gaseous exchange, which leads to oxidative stress. In this complex situation, oxygen therapy could only be of limited utility and would rather aggravate the oxidative stress and its’ downstream pathologies. We propose here that ideally these patients should be treated with exchange blood transfusions for immediate relief and resuscitation.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".