MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312128851 · doi:10.28920/dhm52.4.237-244

Hypoxia signatures in closed-circuit rebreather divers

2022· article· en· W4312128851 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Popa, Craig J. Kutz, Morgan Carlile, Kaighley Brett, Esteban A. Moya, Frank L. Powell, Peter Witucki, Richard C. Sadler, Charlotte Sadler

Bibliographic record

VenueDiving and Hyperbaric Medicine Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoxia (environmental)MedicineBailoutAnesthesiaPhysical therapyCardiologyPsychologyInternal medicineOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Faults or errors during use of closed-circuit rebreathers (CCRs) can cause hypoxia. Military aviators face a similar risk of hypoxia and undergo awareness training to determine their 'hypoxia signature', a personalised, reproducible set of symptoms. We aimed to establish a hypoxia signature among divers, and to investigate their ability to detect hypoxia and self-rescue while cognitively overloaded. METHODS: Eight CCR divers and 12 scuba divers underwent an initial unblinded hypoxia exposure followed by three trials; a second hypoxic trial and two normoxic trials in randomised order. Hypoxia was induced by breathing on a CCR with no oxygen supply. Subjects pedalled on a cycle ergometer while playing a neurocognitive computer game to simulate real world task loading. Subjects identified hypoxia symptoms by pointing to a board listing common hypoxia symptoms, and were instructed to perform a 'bailout' procedure to mimic self-rescue if they perceived hypoxia. Divers were prompted to bailout if peripheral oxygen saturation fell to 75%, or after six minutes during normoxic trials. Subsequently we interviewed subjects to determine their ability to distinguish hypoxia from normoxia. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of subjects (19/20) showed agreement between unblinded and blinded hypoxia symptoms. Subjects correctly identified the gas mixture in 85% of the trials. During unblinded hypoxia, only 25% (5/20) of subjects performed unprompted bailout. Fifty-five percent of subjects (11/20) correctly performed the bailout but only when prompted, while 15% (3/20) were unable to bailout despite prompting. During blinded hypoxia 45% of subjects (9/20) performed the bailout unprompted while 15% (3/20) remained unable to bailout despite prompting. CONCLUSIONS: Although our data support a normobaric hypoxia signature among both CCR and scuba divers under experimental conditions, most subjects were unable to recognise hypoxia in real time and perform a self-rescue unprompted, although this improved in the second hypoxia trial. These results do not support hypoxia exposure training for CCR divers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiving and Hyperbaric Medicine JournalSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207