Hypoxia signatures in closed-circuit rebreather divers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".