Randomised trial of ambulatory oxygen in oxygen-dependent COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term oxygen therapy may limit a patient's ability to remain active and may be detrimental to the rehabilitation process. This study aimed to determine the effect of ambulatory oxygen on quality of life and exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease fulfilling the usual criteria of long-term oxygen therapy. In a 1-yr, randomised, three-period, crossover trial, 24 patients (mean age 68 yrs; mean arterial partial pressure of oxygen at rest 7.1 kPa (53 mmHg)) were allocated to one of the six possible sequences generated by three interventions: 1) standard therapy (home oxygen therapy with an oxygen concentrator only); 2) standard therapy plus as-needed ambulatory oxygen; and 3) standard therapy plus ambulatory compressed air. The comparison of ambulatory oxygen versus ambulatory compressed air was double blind. The main outcomes were quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire), exercise tolerance (6-min walk test) and daily duration of exposure to oxygen therapy. The trial was stopped prematurely after an interim analysis. On average, the patients used few ambulatory cylinders (7.5 oxygen cylinders versus 7.4 compressed air cylinders over a 3-month study period). Ambulatory oxygen had no effect on any of the outcomes. In conclusion, the current results do not support the widespread provision of ambulatory oxygen to patients with oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".