MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415044629 · doi:10.1016/j.chstcc.2025.100223

The Use of the Rox Index to Guide High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy and the Need for Intubation Is Associated With Meaningful Patient Outcomes

2025· article· en· W4415044629 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor Treacy, Ashish Bosukonda, Zhan Zhao, Neha Goel

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Critical Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNasal cannulaIntubationRetrospective cohort studyOxygenationOdds ratioCohort studyOxygen therapyOxygen saturation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a common and life-threatening condition frequently managed with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygenation. The ROX index, the ratio of oxygen saturation to Fio 2 to respiratory rate, has been validated to predict HFNC oxygenation failure, but its impact on outcomes when used to guide decision-making in the timing of intubation remains unclear. Research Question What is the impact on outcomes when the ROX index is used to guide decisions-making in the timing of intubation in patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula therapy? Study Design and Methods A retrospective observational cohort study at an academic medical center emergency department (ED) was undertaken. Two hundred thirty-three adults were initiated on HFNC oxygenation for AHRF between January and December 2022. ROX indices were calculated retrospectively at 4, 6, and 12 hours after HFNC oxygenation initiation. Patients were categorized based on whether their care aligned with ROX predictions as ROX concordant or ROX discordant. The primary outcome was persistent organ dysfunction plus death (POD+D), a composite measure of death and ongoing need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or new dialysis, assessed at day 28. Results Eighty-two percent of patients (n = 191) received ROX-concordant care, whereas 18% of patients (n = 42) received ROX-discordant care. Despite similar baseline characteristics, patients receiving ROX-discordant care experienced significantly worse outcomes: higher POD+D (62% vs 16%; P < .001), 28-day mortality (38% vs 13.6%; P < .001), and in-hospital mortality (50% vs 15%; P < .001). Outcomes were driven by patients intubated despite ROX indices predicting HFNC oxygenation success. Multivariable regression showed that ROX-discordant care increased odds of POD+D 9-fold (OR, 9.2; 95% CI, 4.0-21.1; P < .001) and increased the odds of 28-day mortality by 4.76 times compared with receiving ROX-concordant care (OR, 4.76; 95% CI, 1.76-12.88; P < .001). Interpretation In patients treated with HFNC oxygenation in the ED, clinical decisions aligned with ROX index predictions were associated with significantly better outcomes. Discordant care, especially premature intubation, correlates with increased morbidity and mortality. These findings support prospective validation of improved outcomes with ROX-concordant actions.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHEST Critical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207