Temperature Probe Placement during Preterm Infant Resuscitation: A Randomised Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypothermia on admission to intensive care is associated with poor outcomes in preterm infants. The neonatal resuscitation program recommends the use of servo-control thermoregulation during resuscitation. Very little evidence exists to guide optimal temperature probe placement in the delivery room. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to determine, in moderately preterm infants, if temperature probe placement in the dorsal, thoracic, or axillary area during delivery room resuscitation would result in differing temperatures on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS: A randomised trial with 3 arms was conducted. In total, 122 inborn preterm infants born between 280/7 and 356/7 weeks of gestational age were recruited. The infants were randomly assigned to thermal probe placement in the left lower back, left upper thorax, or left axilla immediately after birth. Temperature was servo-controlled using an infant resuscitation table set to 36.5°C. The primary outcome was axillary temperature at admission to the NICU before transfer to a closed isolette, recorded with a digital thermometer. The secondary outcomes assessed were temperature within the target range (36.5-37.5°C), hypothermia (<36.5°C), and hyperthermia (>37.5°C). RESULTS: All 122 infants were available for outcome analysis. The groups were comparable for birthweight, gestational age, and sex. The mean admission temperature was comparable between the 3 probe positions (mean, 95% CI): dorsum (36.7°C, 36.6-36.8), thorax (36.8°C, 36.7-36.9), and axilla (36.7°C, 36.6-36.9), p = 0.43. The proportion of infants with admission temperatures in the target range was comparable (87.2, 81.4, and 72.5% respectively), p = 0.44. CONCLUSION: Dorsal, thoracic, or axillary temperature probe positioning during resuscitation yield similar admission temperatures in moderately preterm infants. Further studies are required in infants below 28 weeks of gestation to determine the best practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".