MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013267778 · doi:10.1097/anc.0b013e3182761246

A Single-Center Experience of Implementing Delayed Cord Clamping in Babies Born at Less Than 33 Weeks' Gestational Age

2012· article· en· W2013267778 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Aziz, Heather Chinnery, Thierry Lacaze‐Masmonteil

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCord clampingGestational agePediatricsNecrotizing enterocolitisCordPregnancySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and outcomes of delayed cord clamping (DCC) in preterm babies. STUDY DESIGN: Following staff orientation, a policy of DCC for 45 seconds was instituted for all eligible babies born between 28 and 32 weeks' gestational age, and later to all those younger than 33 weeks. RESULTS: Of 480 babies, 349 (73%) were eligible for DCC. Of these, 236 (68%) received DCC. Monthly compliance rates to DCC protocol in eligible babies ranged from 18% to 93%. There was no significant difference in demographic measures or rates of delivery room ventilation between eligible babies who did or did not receive DCC. Delayed cord clamping was associated with less hypothermia, higher initial hemoglobin levels, and less necrotizing enterocolitis, with a trend toward lower 1-minute Apgar scores and less blood pressure support. CONCLUSIONS: The DCC protocol is feasible in preterm babies with reinforcement and education. It appears practical, safe, and applicable, and has minimal impact on immediate neonatal transition, with possible early neonatal benefits.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 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

Citations55
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Neonatal CareSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207