Risk Factors for Severe Neonatal Acidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neonatal asphyxia may have severe consequences in term newborns. Our purpose was to identify possible risk factors of severe acidosis during pregnancy and labor. METHODS: In a case-control study from January 2003 to December 2008 in three university perinatal centers (two French and one Canadian hospitals), we analyzed 226 women with term pregnancies complicated by severe neonatal acidosis (umbilical artery pH less than 7.00). Cases were individually matched with controls with a normal acid-base status (pH 7.15 or greater) paired by parity. Groups were compared for differences in maternal, obstetric, and fetal characteristics. Univariable and logistic conditional regression were used to identify possible risk factors. RESULTS: Among 46,722 births after 22 weeks, 6,572 preterm births and 829 stillbirths or terminations of pregnancy were excluded. From the 39,321 live term births, 5.30% of pH values were unavailable. Severe acidosis complicated 0.63% of 37,235 term structurally normal pregnancies. By using multivariate conditional regression, maternal age 35 years or older (35.0% compared with 15.5%; odds ratio [OR] 5.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.51-12.40), prior neonatal death (3.5% compared with 0%), prior cesarean delivery (24.7% compared with 6.6%; OR 4.08, 95% CI 1.71-9.72) even after excluding cases of uterine rupture, general anesthesia (8.4 compared with 0.9%; OR 8.04, 95% CI 1.26-50.60), thick meconium (6.4% compared with 2.8%; OR 5.81, 95% CI 1.72-19.66), uterine rupture (4.4% compared with 0%), and abnormal fetal heart rate (66.1% compared with 19.8%; OR 8.77, 95% CI 3.72-20.78) were independent risk factors of severe neonatal acidosis. CONCLUSION: Prior cesarean delivery, maternal age 35 years or older, prior neonatal death, general anesthesia, thick meconium, uterine rupture, and abnormal fetal heart rate are independent risk factors of severe neonatal acidosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".