MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Favourable neurological outcomes following delivery room cardiopulmonary resuscitation of infants ≤ 750 g at birth

2000· article· en· W2064752933 on OpenAlexaff
RP Jankov, E Asztalos, MB Skidmore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paediatrics and Child Health · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationApgar scoreVentilation (architecture)Positive pressure ventilationAnesthesiaArtificial respirationUnivariate analysisNeonatal resuscitationMechanical ventilationPediatricsBirth weightPregnancyInternal medicineMultivariate analysisRespiratory failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To study short- and long-term outcomes of infants < or = 750 g birthweight who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the delivery room. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective analysis of all inborn live births < or = 750 g birthweight from 1990 to 1996. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was defined as positive pressure ventilation via an endotracheal tube and chest compressions. Univeriate analysis were conducted comparing patients according to the use of CPR or positive pressure ventilation alone. RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was administered to 16 infants: four received chest compressions only and 12 also received adrenaline. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation recipients had significantly lower Apgar scores at both 1 and 5 min, and had delayed onset of spontaneous respiration (P < 0.01). Seven patients died, and eight of nine survivors were free of major neurodevelopmental abnormalities at follow up. All CPR recipients with a 5 min Apgar score of < or = 5 and delayed onset of spontaneous respiration beyond 5 min had poor outcomes. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the majority of published evidence, delivery room CPR in our extremely small infants was not associated with a high risk of severe neurodevelopmental disability.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations48
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Paediatrics and Child HealthSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207