MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793978076 · doi:10.3389/fped.2018.00018

Ventilation Strategies during Neonatal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

2018· review· en· W2793978076 on OpenAlexaff
Nariae Baik‐Schneditz, Megan O’Reilly, Caroline Fray, Sylvia van Os, Po‐Yin Cheung, Georg M. Schmölzer

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationAsphyxiaResuscitationEpinephrineNeonatal resuscitationNeonatal encephalopathyPopulationIncidence (geometry)PediatricsPerinatal asphyxiaEmergency medicineAnesthesiaHypothermia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately, 10-20% of newborns require breathing assistance at birth, which remains the cornerstone of neonatal resuscitation. Fortunately, the need for chest compression (CC) or medications in the delivery room (DR) is rare. About 0.1% of term infants and up to 15% of preterm infants receive these interventions, this will result in approximately one million newborn deaths annually worldwide. In addition, CC or medications (epinephrine) are more frequent in the preterm population (~15%) due to birth asphyxia. A recent study reported that only 6 per 10,000 infants received epinephrine in the DR. Further, the study reported that infants receiving epinephrine during resuscitation had a high incidence of mortality (41%) and short-term neurologic morbidity (57% hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and seizures). A recent review of newborns who received prolonged CC and epinephrine but had no signs of life at 10 min following birth noted 83% mortality, with 93% of survivors suffering moderate-to-severe disability. The poor prognosis associated with receiving CC alone or with medications in the DR raises questions as to whether improved cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods specifically tailored to the newborn could improve outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207