Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996, Rennie wrote that outcome after full cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) following delivery of a very preterm infant was “appalling.”(48) Her justifications for this conclusion were reports published in the early 1990s. In one, from Manchester, England, three of five babies born less than 28 weeks' gestation, who received full CPR, including adrenaline, died and the survivors were handicapped.(49) In a report from Oklahoma, there were no survivors of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants who required more than one resuscitative attempt.(50) In similar circumstances there were only two normal survivors, during the years 1989–1993, reported in a study from Cambridge, England, and all six infants given full CPR in Ottawa, Canada, with birth weights less than 750g, during 1989–1992, died.(51) In sharp contrast to these reports are later ones that suggest that condition at birth of an EPTI may not be a good indicator of viability or later outcome.(52) Jankov, Asztalos, and Skidmore evaluated whether vigorous resuscitation of ELBW infants at birth improved survival or increased the chances of major neurodevelopmental disability. They reported the outcome of a group of infants born weighing 750g or less who received CPR (positive pressure ventilation, cardiac compression, +/− adrenaline) in the delivery room. About 57% survived, and 88% were free of major neurodevelopmental disability at follow-up.(53) Similar findings have been published by several other authors(54–56) and it does appear that CPR in the delivery room for the EPTI does not necessarily lead to a large decrease in survival or an increase in major neurologic sequelae compared to those who survived following only intubation and positive pressure ventilation.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".