Haemodynamic effects of umbilical cord milking in premature sheep during the neonatal transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Umbilical cord milking (UCM) at birth may benefit preterm infants, but the physiological effects of UCM are unknown. We compared the physiological effects of two UCM strategies with immediate umbilical cord clamping (UCC) and physiological-based cord clamping (PBCC) in preterm lambs. METHODS: At 126 days' gestational age, fetal lambs were exteriorised, intubated and instrumented to measure umbilical, pulmonary and cerebral blood flows and arterial pressures. Lambs received either (1) UCM without placental refill (UCMwoPR); (2) UCM with placental refill (UCMwPR); (3) PBCC, whereby ventilation commenced prior to UCC; or (4) immediate UCC. UCM involved eight milks along a 10 cm length of cord, followed by UCC. RESULTS: A net volume of blood was transferred into the lamb during UCMwPR (8.8 mL/kg, IQR 8-10, P=0.01) but not during UCMwoPR (0 mL/kg, IQR -2.8 to 1.7) or PBCC (1.1 mL/kg, IQR -1.3 to 4.3). UCM had no effect on pulmonary blood flow, but caused large fluctuations in mean carotid artery pressures (MBP) and blood flows (CABF). In UCMwoPR and UCMwPR lambs, MBP increased by 12%±1% and 8%±1% and CABF increased by 32%±2% and 15%±2%, respectively, with each milk. Cerebral oxygenation decreased the least in PBCC lambs (17%, IQR 13-26) compared with UCMwoPR (26%, IQR 23-25, P=0.03), UCMwPR (35%, IQR 27-44, P=0.02) and immediate UCC (34%, IQR 28-41, P=0.02) lambs. CONCLUSIONS: UCMwoPR failed to provide placental transfusion, and UCM strategies caused considerable haemodynamic disturbance. UCM does not provide the same physiological benefits of PBCC. Further review of UCM is warranted before adoption into routine clinical 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".