Short-Term Oxygen Therapy Outcomes in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Short-term oxygen therapy (STOT) is often prescribed to allow patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to be discharged safely from hospital following an acute illness. This practice is widely accepted without being based on evidence. Purpose: Our objective was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COPD who received STOT. Patients and Methods: The study was a secondary analysis of the INOX trial, a 4-year randomised trial of nocturnal oxygen in COPD. The trial indicated that nocturnal oxygen has no significant effect on survival or progression to LTOT, allowing our merging of patients who received nocturnal oxygen and those who received placebo into a single cohort to study the predictors and outcomes of STOT regardless of the treatment received during the trial. Results: Among the 243 participants in the trial, 60 required STOT on at least one occasion during follow-up. Patients requiring STOT had more severe dyspnoea and lung function impairment, and lower PaO 2 at baseline than those who did not. STOT was associated with subsequent LTOT requirement (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.98– 7.07) and mortality (HR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.15– 3.24). The association between STOT and mortality was confounded by age, disease severity and comorbidities. Periods of STOT of more than one month and/or repeated prescriptions of STOT increased the probability of progression to LTOT (OR: 5.07; 95% CI: 1.48– 18.8). Conclusion: Following an acute respiratory illness in COPD, persistent hypoxaemia requiring STOT is a marker of disease progression towards the requirement for LTOT. Keywords: oxygen therapy, short-term, long-term, mortality, 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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".