Families' perceptions of consumer‐grade, inexpensive oxygen saturation monitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated what proportion of families have a consumer-grade pulse oximeter, why they bought one, and how they choose to use it. WORKING HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that children followed in cardiorespiratory clinics would be more likely to have an oximeter than children attending a more general clinic. STUDY DESIGN AND SUBJECT SELECTION: We carried out a cross-sectional study using a convenience sample of children attending a respirology, cardiology, or gastroenterology clinic at a children's hospital. Consenting guardians completed a survey. RESULTS: Two-hundred families completed the survey. Fifty-three (26.5%; 53/200) had an oximeter at home. The proportion of children attending a cardiorespiratory clinic who had an oximeter was higher than another clinic (p = 0.08), but 15.5% of children attending the latter also had access to one. Of devices not funded by government insurance, over 80% of devices were "fingertip" clamp-style oximeters, and 50% were purchased online. Most devices were used only when the child was ill (83.7%; 36/43). Only about 1/3 of families had received education about using an oximeter, and a similar proportion had compared their oximeter to a medical-grade device. Only 2.4% (1/42) respondents did not feel that their device was "somewhat" or "very" accurate. The oxygen saturation that would prompt seeking emergency care was similar to most pediatric acute care guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Many children, particularly those with cardiorespiratory conditions, have access to consumer-grade pulse oximeters. Asking about the presence of an oximeter should be part of the pediatric history, and families responding affirmatively should be offered education.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".