Cord milking versus immediate clamping in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether umbilical cord milking (UCM) at birth improves systemic blood flow and short-term outcomes, as compared with immediate cord clamping (ICC). DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Single tertiary care centre. PATIENTS: Infants born to eligible women presenting in preterm labour between 24 and 31 weeks' gestation. INTERVENTIONS: UCM three times at birth or ICC. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome included systemic blood flow as represented by echo-derived superior vena cava(SVC) flow at 4-6 hours after birth. The echocardiographer and interpreter were blinded to the randomisation. Secondary outcomes included cardiac output, neonatal morbidities and mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 73 infants were randomised (37 to UCM and 36 to ICC). Mean (SD) gestational age was 27 (2) weeks and mean (SD) birth weight was 1040 (283) g. Haemoglobin on admission was higher in the UCM than in the ICC group (16.1 vs 15.0 g/L), p=0.049 (mean difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.003 to 2.2). No statistically significant differences were found between groups in SVC flow at 4-6 hours (88.9±37.8 and 107.3±60.1 mL/kg/min), p=0.13 (mean difference -18.4, 95% CI -41.7 to 5.0 mL/kg/min) or at 10-12 hours of age (102.5±41.8 and 90.6±28.4 mL/kg/min), p=0.17 (mean difference 12.0, 95% CI -4.7 to 28.7 mL/kg/min), cardiac output or neonatal morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Cord milking was not shown to improve functional cardiac outcomes, neonatal morbidity or mortality. More research is needed before routine cord milking can be recommended for very preterm infants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01487187.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".