Effect of the modified snorkel mask as noninvasive ventilatory support in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The shortage of mechanical ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic led doctors to use alternative noninvasive ventilation systems, including a modified snorkel mask. Data on the use of the modified snorkel mask is limited. Purpose: The study aims to describe the effect and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 treated with a snorkel mask and to investigate the factors associated with the failure to use noninvasive ventilation with a snorkel mask. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with a snorkel mask at Daniel Alcides Carrion Hospital of Huancayo-Perú were selected. Results: Of the 390 patients included, 158 (20.5%) received noninvasive ventilation with a snorkel, 84 (53.2%) patients were discharged alive without intubation, and the mortality rate was 22%. In the control group that received standard treatment, 129 patients (55.6%) failed (i.e., deceased or admitted to a mechanical ventilator). The mortality rate was 33.2%. ROX index < 4.8, consolidation-type tomographic pattern, and the presence of complications, such as bacterial pneumonia or thromboembolism, were independently associated with a higher risk of noninvasive ventilation failure with snorkels. Conclusions: Using the snorkel system resulted in an absolute mortality reduction of 11%, and recovery increased by 15% compared to the standard treatment system. Therefore, this device can be used as an acceptable alternative in the absence of mechanical ventilators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".