Randomized Trial of Occlusive Wrap for Heat Loss Prevention in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the application of occlusive wrap applied immediately after birth will reduce mortality in very preterm infants. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial of infants born 24 0/7 to 27 6/7 weeks' gestation who were assigned randomly to occlusive wrap or no wrap. The primary outcome was all cause mortality at discharge or 6 months' corrected age. Secondary outcomes included temperature, Apgar scores, pH, base deficit, blood pressure and glucose, respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, seizures, patent ductus arteriosus, necrotizing enterocolitis, gastrointestinal perforation, intraventricular hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, pulmonary hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, hearing screen, and pneumothorax. RESULTS: Eight hundred one infants were enrolled. There was no difference in baseline population characteristics. There were no significant differences in mortality (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5). Wrap infants had statistically significant greater baseline temperatures (36.3°C wrap vs 35.7°C no wrap, P < .0001) and poststabilization temperatures (36.6°C vs 36.2°C, P < .001) than nonwrap infants. For the secondary outcomes, there was a significant decrease in pulmonary hemorrhage (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-0.9) in the wrap group and a significant lower mean one minute Apgar score (P = .007) in the wrap group. The study was stopped early because continued enrollment would not result in the attainment of a significant difference in the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Application of occlusive wrap to very preterm infants immediately after birth results in greater mean body temperature but does not reduce mortality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".