To Dye or Not to Dye: A Randomized, Clinical Trial of a Triple Dye/Alcohol Regime Versus Dry Cord Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The use of antibacterial agents to clean and dry the stump of the newborn's umbilical cord after birth has recently been abandoned by many neonatal units in favor of dry cord care. The objective of this study was to compare cord bacterial colonization and morbidity among newborns whose cords were treated with triple dye and alcohol versus dry cord care. METHODOLOGY: We randomly allocated 766 newborns to either 2 applications of triple dye to the umbilical cord stump on the day of birth with alcohol swabbing twice daily until the cord fell off (n = 384) or dry care (n = 382). Dry care consisted of spot cleaning soiled skin in the periumbilical area with soap and water, wiping it with a dry cotton swab or cloth, and allowing the area to air dry. Umbilical stumps on all subjects were swabbed and cultured. Community health nurses visiting at 2 or 3 days after hospital discharge observed the stump for signs of infection. Follow-up phone calls were made to mothers within 3 weeks of discharge. RESULTS: One infant in the dry care group was diagnosed with omphalitis. The umbilical stump was colonized with alpha-hemolytic streptococcus and coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Infants in the dry care group were significantly more likely to be colonized with Escherichia coli (34.2% vs 22.1%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (69.5% vs 50.5%), Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% vs 2.8%), and group B streptococci (11.7% vs 6.0%). Community health nurses were significantly more likely to observe exudate (7.4% vs 0.3%) and foul odor (2.9% vs 0.7%) among infants allocated to the dry care group during the home visit. CONCLUSIONS: Omphalitis remains a clinical issue. Cessation of bacteriocidal care of the umbilical stump must be accompanied by vigilant attention to the signs and symptoms of omphalitis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".