The OxyMask™ development and performance in healthy volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
James E Paul1, Horia Hangan2, Julius Hajgato31Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 2Faculty of Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada; 3Southmedic Inc., Barrie, ON, CanadaBackground: The OxyMask™ is a unique, open-style, oxygen mask that was originally developed in 2005. The original mask was modified, using computational fluid dynamics numerical simulations, with the goal of allowing it to produce a wider range of FiO2. This analysis was used to guide the modification of the mask shell and the location for the oxygen diffuser.Methods: The new OxyMask was attached to 10 healthy subjects and used to deliver escalating levels of oxygen (1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 LPM) for 90 seconds at each level and the resulting FiO2 was recorded (at the lips) from 5 consecutive measurements at each oxygen flow rate.Results: Mean FiO2 was 25.4% at 1.5 LPM of oxygen, 30.1% at 2 LPM, 36.5% at 2.5 LPM, 41.8% at 3 LPM, 57.6% at 5 LPM, 74.4% at 10 LPM, and 80.1% at 15 LPM. Each FiO2 achieved at these escalating oxygen levels was significantly greater than all the previous levels. The mean FiO2 was 82.8 at 20 LPM, 84.2% at 25 LPM and 84.3% at 30 LPM. All of these values on average were not significantly greater than the FiO2 achieved with 15 LPM. In a few subjects a maximum FiO2 of 90% was reached.Conclusion: The original OxyMask was successfully modified so that the second generation of the mask can provide a wide range of FiO2, from 25% to 90%, while keeping its unique open design.Keywords: oxygen, oxygen masks, oxygen therapy, OxyMask™, OxyArm™, clinical trial, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), equipment design, biomedical engineering
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".