Smoking and home oxygen therapy: a review and consensus statement from a multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home oxygen therapy (HOT) improves survival in patients with hypoxaemic chronic respiratory disease. Most patients evaluated for HOT are former or active smokers. Oxygen accelerates combustion and smoking may increase the risk of burn injuries and fire hazards; therefore, it is considered a contraindication for HOT in many countries. However, there is variability in the practices and policies regarding this matter. This multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce aimed to review the potential benefits and risks of smoking in relation to HOT, including medical, practical, legal and ethical considerations. METHODS: The taskforce of the Swedish Respiratory Society comprises 15 members across respiratory medicine, nursing, medical law and ethics. HOT effectiveness and adverse risks related to smoking, as well as practical, legal and ethical considerations, were reviewed, resulting in five general questions and four PICO (population-intervention-comparator-outcome) questions. The strength of each recommendation was rated according to the GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development and evaluation) methodology. RESULTS: General questions about the practical, legal and ethical aspects of HOT were discussed and summarised in the document. The PICO questions resulted in recommendations about assessment, management and follow-up of smoking when considering HOT, if HOT should be offered to people that meet the eligibility criteria but who continue to smoke, if a specific length of time of smoking cessation should be considered before assessing eligibility for HOT, and identification of areas for further research. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors need to be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of HOT in active smokers. A systematic approach is suggested to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating HOT in relation to smoking.
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 | 0.054 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".