67: Preterm Babies who are Ineligible for Later Cord Clamping are a Distinct, At-Risk Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A delay in cord clamping improves outcomes of pre-term babies and is currently recommended by professional societies (SOGC and ACOG). However, guidelines for managing umbilical cord clamping after preterm birth do not clarify specific indications, contraindications and procedural steps. Clinical trials select healthier babies and defer to immediate clamping in the presence of certain criteria, including fetal compromise, placental abruption, need for resuscitation, and when the resuscitation team is not present. Thus many high risk babies have immediate cord clamping by design. To audit outcomes of babies born at <33 weeks gestational age (GA) who receive immediate vs later cord clamping. The Royal Alexandra Hospital is a tertiary perinatal centre with a delayed cord clamping protocol of 45 s to 60 s for preterm babies. Charts were reviewed of babies with the above indications for immediate clamping (IC), and from those in whom later clamping (LC) occurred. Data fields included patient demographics, early neonatal outcomes, and outcomes at the time of discharge Between May 2008 and Dec 2009, the LC was provided in 236 babies. IC was indicated and occurred in 131 babies. The IC group was significantly smaller, more preterm and more likely to be born by C-section than the LC group (Table 1). The IC babies had lower 5 min Apgars; were more likely to be ventilated in the delivery room; had lower initial hemoglobin levels; were three times more likely to require blood pressure support with volume expansion or inotropes; received twice as many blood transfusions; and trended to higher mortality. Indications for IC select for smaller, sicker babies who have worse outcomes than those who are eligible for later clamping. Resuscitation with the cord attached or alternative placental transfusion strategies, such as cord milking or stripping, should be investigated in the IC population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".