Post-Resuscitation Care for Neonates Receiving Positive Pressure Ventilation at Birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate if postresuscitation care (PRC) is indicated for all infants ≥35 weeks' gestation who receive positive pressure ventilation (PPV) at birth, explore the aspects of this care and the factors most predictive of it. METHODS: Our hospital admits any infant who requires PPV at birth to special (intermediate/intensive) neonatal care unit (SNCU) for observation for at least 6 hours. All infants ≥35 weeks' gestation born between 1994 and 2013, who received PPV at birth, were reviewed. We examined perinatal factors that could predict the need for PRC after short (<1 minute) and prolonged (≥1 minute) PPV, admission course, neonatal morbidities, and the aspects of care given. RESULTS: Among 87 464 infants born, 3658 (4.2%) had PPV at birth with 3305 (90%) admitted for PRC. Of those, 1558 (42.6%) were in the short PPV group and 2100 (57.4%) in the prolonged PPV group. Approximately 59% of infants who received short PPV stayed in the SNCU for ≥1 day. Infants who received prolonged PPV were more likely to have morbidities and require special neonatal care. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed the risk factors of placental abruption, assisted delivery, small-for-dates, gestational age <37 weeks, low 5-minute Apgar score, and need for intubation at birth to be independent predictors for SNCU stay ≥1 day and need for assisted ventilation, central lines, and parenteral nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the need for PRC even for infants receiving short PPV at birth.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".