MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2762579287 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e71

102: Neonatal Resuscitation Following Elective Caesarean Section: An Observational Study

2015· article· en· W2762579287 on OpenAlexaff
James H. Weir, Stacy E. Smith, Juliet Soper

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCaesarean sectionApgar scoreResuscitationNeonatal resuscitationObstetricsMeconiumInterquartile rangePregnancyEmergency medicineBirth weightSurgeryFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infants delivered by elective caesarean section have similar need for resuscitation as infants delivered by spontaneous vaginal deliveries. Approximately 10% of deliveries are estimated to require neonatal resuscitation with 1% requiring extensive measures. A health care provider certified by the Neonatal Resuscitation Program but without advanced airway skills is therefore considered sufficient at low risk deliveries. Despite this, a retrospective chart review at our institution had suggested that over 40% of all caesarian section deliveries received suctioning or bag/mask ventilation. We undertook this study to confirm the extent to which suctioning and bag mask ventilation were undertaken following elective caesarean section deliveries and to explore whether these resuscitation efforts were indicated. This was an observational study of 50 elective caesarean deliveries in a small urban centre (approximately 4000 deliveries each year) between May 2014 and September 2014. Mothers were recruited for the study from the antenatal clinic and provided informed consent. All elective indications were included. Emergency caesarean sections were excluded. Presence of meconium, age at first cry (seconds), APGAR score, and timing of resuscitation interventions if used (suctioning, bag/mask ventilation) were recorded. Frequency distributions were used to describe data that was categorical in nature. Continuous data is presented as means and standard deviations or as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR indicates the 25th and 75th percentile) where the data was not normally distributed. Fifty-four infants were delivered through 50 elective caesarean sections. Caesarean section occurred due to maternal request (2%), maternal illness indicators (7%), fetal indicators (11%), and previous caesarean sections (80%). One infant was born through meconium liquor and one infant had a heart rate less than 120 bpm prior to delivery. 22/54 (41%) infants received suctioning during the first 10 minutes following delivery (mean = 99.1 seconds, range = 34–604 seconds). Eight of 54 (14%) infants received bag/mask ventilation using air and five (9%) infants received oxygen via bag/mask. All but one infant had a robust cry prior to suctioning or bag/mask. Median 1-minute APGAR's were 9 (IQR 8–9) and median 5 minute Apgar's were 9 (IQR 9–9). In observed deliveries, suctioning and bag/mask ventilation occurred after a robust cry by the infant in all but one case. This finding suggests that suctioning and bag/mask ventilation is occurring more frequently than indicated by Neonatal Resuscitation Program guidelines at our centre. Reasons for this observation need to be explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→