Chest Compression Quality in a Newborn Manikin: A Randomized Crossover Trial (August 2016)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper was to examine the changes in applied force and rate of chest compression (CC) during 5 min of CC with a target CC rate of 90/min (CC90) or 120/min (CC120) with and without metronome guidance during simulated neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We performed a randomized controlled manikin trial. Fourteen neonatal resuscitation program providers performed CC90 and CC120 with or without a metronome in a randomized order. Peak and residual leaning force and CC rate each minute of CPR were analyzed with Friedman's analysis of variance (ANOVA) (within interventions) and two-way repeated measures ANOVA (between interventions). There was a large variability in force application, with no difference between groups. Peak and residual leaning forces in CC90 and CC120 did not change with time with or without a metronome. The CC rate increased with time in all groups except CC90 without a metronome. In conclusion, neither the target CC rate nor using a metronome influenced the peak and residual leaning forces during simulated neonatal CPR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".