PL.32 Umbilical Artery Blood Analysis at the Time of Delivery: A Comparison Between Babies Born by Different Modes of Delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Umbilical cord arterial blood samples are taken routinely following delivery at many obstetric units in the UK. Whilst the pH of cord blood has been extensively investigated, other parameters have not. In this study we compared several parameters in cord blood between infants born by different modes of delivery. Methods Umbilical artery cord blood samples taken immediately following delivery from 469 infants were analysed to compare pH, base deficit, lactate, glucose, p02 and pCO2. These values were then compared using one-way ANOVA testing to determine if significant differences existed between the different mode of delivery groups. Results Significant differences in the mean base excess, lactate, glucose and pO2 levels were observed between the different mode of delivery groups. Infants delivered by emergency Caesarean section for fetal compromise had the lowest pO2 and lowest glucose level of all mode of delivery groups, as well as the smallest base deficit and lowest lactate levels. No significant difference was observed in pH levels between the different mode of delivery groups. Conclusions Umbilical artery pH at delivery is one mechanism used to evaluate the fetal condition at the time of delivery. We found no variation in umbilical artery pH between the different mode of delivery groups. This may have been due to resuscitative measures following the diagnosis of fetal compromise. However, despite this, significant differences in p02 and glucose levels remained. Further investigation of these parameters may allow better fetal assessment both intra-partum, and at the time of delivery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".