Pulmonary function following hyperbaric oxygen therapy: A longitudinal observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is known to be associated with pulmonary oxygen toxicity. However, the effect of modern HBOT protocols on pulmonary function is not completely understood. The present study evaluates pulmonary function test changes in patients undergoing serial HBOT. We prospectively collected data on patients undergoing HBOT from 2016-2021 at a tertiary referral center (protocol registration NCT05088772). Patients underwent pulmonary function testing with a bedside spirometer/pneumotachometer prior to HBOT and after every 20 treatments. HBOT was performed using 100% oxygen at a pressure of 2.0-2.4 atmospheres absolute (203-243 kPa) for 90 minutes, five times per week. Patients' charts were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, comorbidities, medications, HBOT specifications, treatment complications, and spirometry performance. Primary outcomes were defined as change in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and forced mid-expiratory flow (FEF25-75), after 20, 40, and 60 HBOT sessions. Data was analyzed with descriptive statistics and mixed-model linear regression. A total of 86 patients were enrolled with baseline testing, and the analysis included data for 81 patients after 20 treatments, 52 after 40 treatments, and 12 after 60 treatments. There were no significant differences in pulmonary function tests after 20, 40, or 60 HBOT sessions. Similarly, a subgroup analysis stratifying the cohort based on pre-existing respiratory disease, smoking history, and the applied treatment pressure did not identify any significant changes in pulmonary function tests during HBOT. There were no significant longitudinal changes in FEV1, FVC, or FEF25-75 after serial HBOT sessions in patients regardless of pre-existing respiratory disease. Our results suggest that the theoretical risk of pulmonary oxygen toxicity following HBOT is unsubstantiated with modern treatment protocols, and that pulmonary function is preserved even in patients with pre-existing asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, and interstitial lung 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".