Hypothermia Therapy After Pediatric Cardiac Arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypothermia therapy improves mortality and functional outcome after cardiac arrest and birth asphyxia in adults and newborns. The effect of hypothermia therapy in infants and children with cardiac arrest is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 2-year, retrospective, 5-center study was conducted, and 222 patients with cardiac arrest were identified. Seventy-nine (35.6%) of these patients met eligibility criteria for the study (age >40 weeks postconception and <18 years, cardiac arrest >3 minutes in duration, survival for > or = 12 hours after return of circulation, and no birth asphyxia). Twenty-nine (36.7%) of these 79 patients received hypothermia therapy and were cooled to 33.7+/-1.3 degrees C for 20.8+/-11.9 hours. Hypothermia therapy was associated with higher mortality (P=0.009), greater duration of cardiac arrest (P=0.005), more resuscitative interventions (P<0.001), higher postresuscitation lactate levels (P<0.001), and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (P<0.001). When adjustment was made for duration of cardiac arrest, use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and propensity scores by use of a logistic regression model, no statistically significant differences in mortality were found (P=0.502) between patients treated with hypothermia therapy and those treated with normothermia. Also, no differences in hypothermia-related adverse events were found between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hypothermia therapy was used in resuscitation scenarios that are associated with greater risk of poor outcome. In an adjusted analysis, the effectiveness of hypothermia therapy was neither supported nor refuted. A randomized controlled trial is needed to rigorously evaluate the benefits and harms of hypothermia therapy after pediatric cardiac arrest.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".