Association between hypocapnia and ventilation during the first days of life and brain injury in asphyxiated newborns treated with hypothermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Therapeutic hypothermia is the standard treatment for asphyxiated newborns. Since hypocapnia is common in these newborns, the aim of this study was to assess the association among hypocapnia, ventilation, and brain injury.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all asphyxiated newborns treated with hypothermia from 2008 to 2014. Partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2), ventilatory status, and modes of ventilation were recorded during the first 4 days of life. Brain injury was evaluated using brain magnetic resonance imaging. Differences between intubated and nonintubated newborns and between the newborns who developed brain injury or not were assessed.Results: One hundred ninety-eight asphyxiated newborns were treated with hypothermia. During the first 2 days of life, intubated newborns had consistently lower pCO2 levels (respectively, 29.01 ± 8.55, p < .001 on day 1 of life and 33.65 ± 7.12, p = .004 on day 2 of life). Fifty-nine percent of the intubated newborns developed brain injury versus only 43% of the nonintubated newborns (p = .046). The lowest pCO2 levels averaged over the first 4 days of life were significantly decreased in newborns developing brain injury (p = .02) and significantly associated with brain injury severity (p = .01). After adjusting for potential cofounders, the lowest pCO2 averaged over days 1–4 of life remained significantly associated with an increased risk of brain injury (odds ratio [95%CI]: 1.07 [1.00–1.14]; p = .04).Conclusions: Intubated and ventilated asphyxiated newborns experienced more severe hypocapnia, and had higher incidences of brain injury. Hypocapnia during the first 4 days of life was associated with an increased risk of developing (more severe) brain injury.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".