Short-Term Neurophysiologic Consequences of Intrapartum Asphyxia in Piglets Born by Spontaneous Parturition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Piglets appear to be neurologically sensitive to intrapartum asphyxia. Our aim was to investigate the short-term neurophysiologic consequences of intrapartum asphyxia in piglets. We studied 10 piglets suffering intrapartum asphyxia and 10 control piglets. Glucose and blood gas levels, tympanic membrane temperature, and body weight were measured within the first 2 min after birth. Animals were followed up for a 5-day period. As surrogated markers of piglets' neurological function, a viability score and the time elapsed from birth to the first contact with the maternal udder were recorded. In the control group, temperature and blood pH levels at birth were significantly higher (p < or = .001), whereas calcium, lactate and PCO2 levels were statistically lower (p < or = .05) than in the piglets experiencing intrapartum asphyxia. Lower temperature and blood pH levels as well as higher blood PCO2 and lactate levels were observed in piglets with lower viability scores and in piglets with prolonged times until first udder contact. At the end of the study, asphyxiated piglets weighed on average 200 g less (p = .023) than control piglets. In conclusion, intrapartum asphyxia in spontaneously born piglets was associated with signs of acute neurological dysfunction and lower weight gain, supporting the hypothesis that they may be used as a naturalistic model for the study of asphyxia in newborns.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".