Development of a new ambulatory oxygen delivery method combining continuous oxygen flow and demand oxygen delivery systems: A prospective, single-blind, randomized crossover pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim: Although demand oxygen delivery system (DODS) prolongs ambulatory oxygen supply, the efficacy of preventing hypoxemia is likely to be lower than continuous oxygen flow (CF) as oxygen concentration to be inhaled with DODS depends on breathing pattern. This study aimed in comparing the efficacy between conventional oxygen delivery methods and a new method, which combined CF and DODS (CF+DODS), by assessing oxygen saturation (SpO2) during walking in patients with COPD. Methods: After 6-min walk test (6MWT) familiarization, stable COPD patients performed three 6MWTs with different oxygen delivery methods in random order with CF, DODS and CF+DODS. Primary outcome was SpO2 during the 6MWT. Results: Fourteen COPD patients completed the test. The linear mixed model on SpO2 revealed significant main effects of oxygen conditions (F = 67.66, P < 0.001) and time (F = 126.69, P < 0.001), however no significant interaction (F = 0.56, P = 0.875). In the post-hoc analysis, SpO2 in DODS was significantly lower than CF and CF+DODS throughout the 6MWT (Figure 1). There were no significant differences in distance walked and dyspnea at the end of the 6MWTs among each oxygen delivery condition. erj;64/suppl_68/OA5547/F1 F1 F1 Conclusion: CF+DODS enables a longer duration of ambulatory oxygen supply, while preventing hypoxemia to the same degree as CF.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".