Umbilical cord blood acid-base analysis and the development of significant hyperbilirubinemia in near-term and term newborns: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recognition, follow-up, and early treatment of neonatal jaundice has become more difficult, since the earlier discharge of newborns from hospitals has become common practice. Since intrapartum hypoxic stress has been pointed as predisposing factor for the occurrence of hyperbilirubinemia risk, we tested the association with the cord blood acid-base index tests. METHODS: A cohort of healthy term and near-term newborns underwent umbilical cord hemogasanalysis at birth and capillary heel total serum bilirubin (TSB) pre-discharge, scheduled at 36 h of life, to define the risk of significant hyperbilirubinemia, defined as >9 mg/dL TSB level, ≥ 75th percentile on nomogram of Bhutani et al. RESULTS: (20.71 ± 2.37 vs. 21.29 ± 2.25 mEq/L, p < 0.010), base deficit (-3.52 ± 3.188 vs. -2.68 ± 3.266 mEq/L, p < 0.010), and lactacidemia (3.84 ± 1.864 vs. 3.39 ± 1.737 mEq/L, p < 0.012), respectively. However, logistic regression analysis showed that base deficit was the strongest index of the pre-discharge hyperbilirubinemia risk (OR, 95% CI 0.593; 0.411-0.856), and the hyperbilirubinemia risk increased by 40% with the decrease of 1 mEq/L of base deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Umbilical cord blood acidemia and lactacidemia are significant indexes of adaptive mechanisms at birth. The base deficit provides the strongest association with future development of high bilirubin on an hour specific bilirubin nomogram generating risk stratification score in term and near-term neonates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".