Validation of Noninvasive Assessment of Pulmonary Gas Exchange in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease during Initial Exposure to High Altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigation of pulmonary gas exchange efficacy usually requires arterial blood gas analysis (aBGA) to determine arterial partial pressure of oxygen (mPaO2) and compute the Riley alveolar-to-arterial oxygen difference (A-aDO2); that is a demanding and invasive procedure. A noninvasive approach (AGM100), allowing the calculation of PaO2 (cPaO2) derived from pulse oximetry (SpO2), has been developed, but this has not been validated in a large cohort of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Our aim was to conduct a validation study of the AG100 in hypoxemic moderate-to-severe COPD. Concurrent measurements of cPaO2 (AGM100) and mPaO2 (EPOC, portable aBGA device) were performed in 131 moderate-to-severe COPD patients (mean ±SD FEV1: 60 ± 10% of predicted value) and low-altitude residents, becoming hypoxemic (i.e., SpO2 < 94%) during a short stay at 3100 m (Too-Ashu, Kyrgyzstan). Agreements between cPaO2 (AGM100) and mPaO2 (EPOC) and between the O2-deficit (calculated as the difference between end-tidal pressure of O2 and cPaO2 by the AGM100) and Riley A-aDO2 were assessed. Mean bias (±SD) between cPaO2 and mPaO2 was 2.0 ± 4.6 mmHg (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.2 to 2.8 mmHg) with 95% limits of agreement (LoA): −7.1 to 11.1 mmHg. In multivariable analysis, larger body mass index (p = 0.046), an increase in SpO2 (p < 0.001), and an increase in PaCO2-PETCO2 difference (p < 0.001) were associated with imprecision (i.e., the discrepancy between cPaO2 and mPaO2). The positive predictive value of cPaO2 to detect severe hypoxemia (i.e., PaO2 ≤ 55 mmHg) was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.98) with a positive likelihood ratio of 3.77 (95% CI: 1.71 to 8.33). The mean bias between O2-deficit and A-aDO2 was 6.2 ± 5.5 mmHg (95% CI: 5.3 to 7.2 mmHg; 95%LoA: −4.5 to 17.0 mmHg). AGM100 provided an accurate estimate of PaO2 in hypoxemic patients with COPD, but the precision for individual values was modest. This device is promising for noninvasive assessment of pulmonary gas exchange efficacy in COPD patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".