Tactile stimulation during neonatal transition and its effect on vital parameters in neonates during neonatal transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim This study analysed tactile stimulation during neonatal transition and resuscitation in preterm and term neonates born by Caesarean delivery. It examined the frequency, location and body region, duration and possible effects of stimulation on heart rate and arterial oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ). Methods Two independent investigators analysed video recordings of tactile stimulation on term and preterm neonates during neonatal transition from January 2012 to December 2014. They were recorded during a prospective observational study and randomised controlled trial at a tertiary centre, the Medical University of Graz, Austria. SpO 2 and heart rate were continuously recorded. Data on the frequency, body region and duration of stimulation were collected. To investigate the possible effects of stimulation, SpO 2 and heart rate were compared before and after stimulation. Results Term infants received tactile stimulation more than once, and it tended to start later, last longer and be applied in more locations than in preterm infants. Only preterm infants showed a significant increase in SpO 2 after stimulation and heart rates did not show any significant changes in either group. Conclusion Tactile stimulation was applied in different ways to preterm and term infants during neonatal transition and SpO 2 showed a significant increase in preterm infants.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".