MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411202465 · doi:10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf074

Oxygen supplementation in ambulatory patients with heart failure: a randomized proof-of-concept study

2025· article· en· W4411202465 on OpenAlex
Maxime Tremblay‐Gravel, Anna Nozza, Stanislav Glezer, Jacinthe Boulet, Marie-Claude Parent, Geneviève Giraldeau, Normand Racine, Anil Nigam, Isabelle Cloutier, Jean L. Rouleau, Eileen O’Meara, Anique Ducharme, Jean‐Claude Tardif

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbulatoryHeart failureRandomized controlled trialMedicineSupplemental oxygenOxygenInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims The aims of this study were to describe the short-term effects of oxygen therapy on the physiological response and symptoms during ambulation in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Methods and results In this pilot, cross-over, randomized study, subjects with chronic HF underwent two 6-min walk tests (6MWTs) on the same day. They were randomized to either receive oxygen through a portable oxygen concentrator (POC ON) during the first test and no oxygen (POC OFF) during the second test, or vice versa. Endpoints included (i) peripheral oxygen saturation, (ii) heart rate, and (iii) modified BORG scale. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used for comparisons. A total of 20 participants were included, aged 70 ± 10 years, with the mean left ventricular ejection fraction 33% ± 10% and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide 1115 ± 1625 pg/mL. There was no difference in distance walked with or without oxygen supplementation. Oxygen saturation during 6MWT was higher with POC ON [3 min, SpO2 + 3.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–5.0%; 6 min, + 2.8%, 95% CI 2.2–3.3%]. Heart rate recovery tended to be better in patients with POC ON (difference 7.4 b.p.m., 95% CI −2.4 to 17.2). Perceived exertion and fatigue were significantly lower with POC ON during exercise (3 min, −0.7, 95% CI −1.2 to −0.2; 6 min, −0.75, 95% CI −1.1 to −0.4; and 3 min into recovery, −0.5, 95% CI −0.8 to −0.2). Conclusion Our results suggest that for a same amount of physical activity, supplemental oxygen can improve peripheral oxygen saturation and breathlessness in symptomatic patients with chronic HF.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it