MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895674518 · doi:10.3390/children6010004

Chest Compressions in the Delivery Room

2019· review· en· W2895674518 on OpenAlexafffund
Catalina Garcia-Hidalgo, Georg M. Schmölzer

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of AlbertaChildren's Hospital FoundationStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Annually, an estimated 13⁻26 million newborns need respiratory support and 2⁻3 million newborns need extensive resuscitation, defined as chest compression and 100% oxygen with or without epinephrine in the delivery room. Despite such care, there is a high incidence of mortality and neurologic morbidity. The poor prognosis associated with receiving chest compression alone or with medications in the delivery room raises questions as to whether improved cardiopulmonary resuscitation methods specifically tailored to the newborn could improve outcomes. This review discusses the current recommendations, mode of action, different compression to ventilation ratios, continuous chest compression with asynchronous ventilations, chest compression and sustained inflation optimal depth, and oxygen concentration during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildrenSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207