MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413970616 · doi:10.1177/15578682251365931

Pharmacological Prophylaxis and Supplemental Oxygen for Unacclimatized Rescuers at Very High Altitude: Scoping Review and 2025 Joint Recommendations of the International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine and the International Society for Mountain Medicine

2025· review· en· W4413970616 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle McLaughlin, Marika Falla, Giacomo Strapazzon, Andrew M. Luks, Ken Zafren, Hermann Brugger, Martin Musi, Iztok Tomazin, John Ellerton, Ghan Bahadur Thapa, Peter Paal

Bibliographic record

VenueHigh Altitude Medicine & Biology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCanmore General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMountaineeringCommissionAltitude sicknessMedicineAltitude (triangle)Effects of high altitude on humansJoint (building)Medical emergencyGeographyBusinessEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

McLaughlin, Kyle, Steve Roy, Marika Falla, Giacomo Strapazzon, Andrew M. Luks, Ken Zafren, Hermann Brugger, Martin Musi, Iztok Tomazin, John Ellerton, Ghan Bahadur Thapa, and Peter Paal. Pharmacological prophylaxis and supplemental oxygen for unacclimatized rescuers at very high altitude: scoping review and 2025 joint recommendations of the International Commission for Mountain Emergency Medicine and the International Society for Mountain Medicine. High Alt Med Biol. 27:60–77, 2026. Background: Mountain rescuers and pilots rapidly ascending to altitudes above 3,500 m are exposed to the detrimental effects of hypobaric hypoxia, including cognitive and physical impairment, as well as high-altitude illness (HAI). We conducted a scoping review of oxygen supplementation and pharmacologic measures to improve cognitive and physical performance and prevent HAI in unacclimatized rescuers rapidly ascending above 3,500 m during rescue missions. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 723 articles were screened, 133 reviewed and a total of 50 articles were included for data extraction, based on the intervention: 6 on oxygen, 29 on acetazolamide (AZ), 17 on dexamethasone (DEX), 3 on nifedipine, and 5 on phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Discussion: Supplemental oxygen improves physical and cognitive performance at high altitude and is recommended for rapid ascent rescues >30 minutes between 3,500 and 4,000 m, and for rescues of any duration above 4,000 m. If oxygen is administered, pharmacological prophylaxis is not required. If oxygen is unavailable, AZ or DEX can be used for rapid ascent rescues above 3,500 m for longer than 3 hours to reduce the incidence and severity of acute mountain sickness. At altitudes above 5,000 m or for rescues requiring prolonged physical work, the use of both AZ and DEX is recommended. Conclusions: To enhance the safety and effectiveness of high-altitude rescues, we provide recommendations for the use of supplemental oxygen and pharmacologic prophylaxis to reduce the risk of HAI and improve cognitive and physical performance during rapid ascents to altitudes >3,500 m.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0140.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigh Altitude Medicine & BiologySame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207