International stakeholder engagement on clinical care and research for nocturnal hypoxaemia in pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Nocturnal hypoxaemia is common in people with pulmonary fibrosis (PF). This study aimed to explore current practice and establish global perspective on research priorities and outcome measures of importance in sleep assessment and treatment of nocturnal hypoxaemia for PF. Methods People with PF, as well as healthcare professionals (HCPs) including clinicians and researchers with expertise in PF, sleep medicine, and oxygen therapy, were recruited internationally to participate in a mixed-methods online survey followed by online focus groups. Results A total of 68 people with PF and 73 HCPs from 29 countries completed the survey, with 14 and 36 joining the focus groups, respectively. 51% of patients had previous sleep assessment, with 75% of the remaining expressing its need as part of the disease assessment for PF. 64% of HCPs performed sleep assessments routinely or as clinically indicated, with 82% indicating the assessment being very or somewhat important. The top research priority from people with PF and HCPs was treatment effects of nocturnal hypoxaemia on symptom burden (including health-related quality of life [HRQoL]). Other key research priorities identified were safety and tolerability of nocturnal oxygen therapy, treatment effects of nocturnal hypoxaemia on mortality and pulmonary hypertension, diagnostic approaches for assessing sleep and nocturnal hypoxaemia, predictors of nocturnal hypoxaemia, developing a user-friendly oxygen therapy device, and patient awareness of the significance of nocturnal hypoxaemia. For outcome measures of importance, both groups prioritised HRQoL. In addition, people with PF highly ranked forced vital capacity, nocturnal oxygenation status, and apnoea-hypopnoea index, while HCPs selected long-term sequelae such as survival and development of PH. Impact of nocturnal hypoxaemia and sleep disturbance on cognitive performance was raised by people with PF as a key research topic, which was agreed by HCPs. Conclusion This study provides important insights into stakeholders’ priorities to guide future research on sleep assessment and treatment of nocturnal hypoxaemia in PF.
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 | 0.279 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.047 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".