MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206633310 · doi:10.2196/preprints.21897

Ozone therapy for patients with SARS-COV-2 pneumonia: a single-center prospective cohort study (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4206633310 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A Hernández, Montserrat Viñals, Asunción Pablos, Francisco Vilás, Peter J. Papadakos, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, Marc Vives

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Ozone Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineHemotherapyProspective cohort studyPneumoniaCohortCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Emergency medicineInternal medicineSurgeryDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Aside from supportive management, there remains no specific treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> Determine whether the use of ozonated autohemotherapy is associated with shorter time to clinical improvement in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Design: Single-center proof-of-concept prospective cohort study. Setting: Internal Medicine ward at Policlinica Ibiza Hospital, Spain. Participants: Eighteen consecutive patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 infection and severe pneumonia who were admitted to hospital between 20th March and 19th April 2020. Patients in the ozonated autohemotherapy arm received hemotherapy twice daily starting on the day of admission for a median of 4 days. Each treatment involved administration of 200 mL autologous whole blood enriched with 200 mL of oxygen-ozone mixture with a 40 μg/mL ozone concentration. Patients in the control arm received supportive care. Assignment to hemotherapy versus usual care was determined based on the admitting physician on the day of admission, with only one of the three possible physicians prescribing ozonated autohemotherapy. Main Outcomes: The primary outcome was time from hospital admission to clinical improvement, which was defined as either hospital discharge or a two-point improvement in clinical status measured on a six-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were clinical improvement measured on the 7th, 14th and 28th day after admission, as well as time to a 2-fold reduction in concentrations of C-protein reactive, ferritin, D-dimer and lactate dehydrogenase. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> The mean age of the cohort was 68 y and 72% (n=13) were male. Nine patients (50%) received ozonated autohemotherapy beginning on the day of admission. In unadjusted comparisons, ozonated autohemotherapy was associated with significantly shorter time to clinical improvement (median [IQR]), 7 days [6-10] vs 28 days [8-31], p=0.04) and significantly higher proportion of patients achieving 14-day clinical improvement (88.8% vs 33.3%, p=0.01). In risk-adjusted analyses, ozonated autohemotherapy was associated with a shorter mean time to clinical improvement (-11.3 days, p=0.04, 95% CI -22.25 to -0.42). </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Ozonated autohemotherapy was associated with a significantly shorter time to clinical improvement in this prospective cohort study. Given the small sample size and single-center study design, these observations require evaluation in larger randomized controlled trials. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> NCT04444531 </sec>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical and Biological Ozone ResearchFrench-language works237,207