Feasibility of Obtaining Pulse Oximetry Readings From the Oropharynx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As access to monitoring sites on the hands and feet may be limited due to surgical procedures, burns, trauma, or injuries, alternative sites for the measurement of pulse oximetry may be needed. AIMS: The current study assesses the feasibility of obtaining pulse oximetry measurements from the oropharynx, using a pulse oximeter probe attached to a standard oral airway. METHODS: Two cohorts were studied, each including 50 patients, with the oximeter facing toward the palate (cohort 1) or the tongue (cohort 2). RESULTS: The oropharyngeal oximeter functioned effectively with an absolute difference from the extremity values of 4.2 ± 3.4 in cohort 1 and 2.5 ± 3.4 in cohort 2. The number of values that were 0%-2% within the extremity oximetry value was greater in cohort 2 (73.7% versus 35.6%). However, the fallout (number of times when the oropharyngeal oximeter did not record a value was slightly higher in cohort 2 (6.1% versus 1.7%)). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary data shows that oximetry values that are clinically in-line with extremity oximetry values can be obtained from the oropharynx. The accuracy appears to be greater with the emitter and sensor facing the tongue, although there was a higher percentage of missed values.
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 | 0.000 | 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".