Room Air for Initiating Term Newborn Resuscitation: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation prioritized to rigorously review the initial fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) during resuscitation of newborns. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides the scientific summary of initial Fio2 in term and late preterm newborns (≥35 weeks’ gestation) who receive respiratory support at birth. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched between January 1, 1980 and August 10, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected by pairs of independent reviewers in 2 stages, with a Cohen’s κ of 0.8 and 1.0. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of independent reviewers extracted data, appraised risk of bias, and assessed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 quasi RCTs included 2164 patients. Room air (Fio2 0.21) was associated with a statistically significant benefit in short-term mortality compared with 100% oxygen (Fio2 1.0) (7 RCTs; n = 1469; risk ratio [RR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 0.94). No significant differences were observed in neurodevelopmental impairment (2 RCTs; n = 360; RR = 1.41; 95% CI: 0.77 to 2.60) or hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (5 RCTs; n = 1315; RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.18). LIMITATIONS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence was low for short-term mortality and hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and very low for neurodevelopmental impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Room air has a 27% relative reduction in short-term mortality compared with Fio2 1.0 for initiating neonatal resuscitation ≥35 weeks’ gestation.
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 | 0.027 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".