Comparison of Different Compression to Ventilation Ratios (2: 1, 3: 1, and 4: 1) during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Porcine Model of Neonatal Asphyxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-quality chest compression is essential during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, the optimal compression to ventilation ratio (C:V) that should be used during neonatal CPR to optimize coronary and cerebral perfusion while providing adequate ventilation remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that different C:V ratios (e.g., 2: 1 or 4: 1) will reduce the time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in severely asphyxiated piglets. METHODS: Thirty-one newborn piglets (1-4 days old) were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to 50-min normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia. Piglets were randomized into 4 groups: 2: 1 (n = 8), 3: 1 (n = 8), 4: 1 (n = 8) C:V ratio, or a sham group (n = 7). Cardiac function, carotid blood flow, cerebral oxygenation, and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. RESULTS: Thirty-one piglets were included in the study, and there was no difference in the duration of asphyxia or the degree of asphyxiation (as indicated by pH, PaCO2, and lactate) among the different groups. The median (IQR) time to ROSC was similar between the groups with 127 (82-210), 96 (88-126), and 119 (83-256) s in the 2: 1, 3: 1, and 4: 1 C:V ratio groups, respectively (p = 0.67 between groups). Similarly, there was no difference in 100% oxygen requirement or epinephrine administration between the experimental groups. CONCLUSIONS: Different C:V ratios resulted in similar ROSC, mortality, oxygen, and epinephrine administration during resuscitation in a porcine model of neonatal asphyxia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".