Parallel Exploratory RCT of Polyethylene Wrap for Heat Loss Prevention in Infants Born at Less than 24 Weeks’ Gestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background:</i></b> The treatment effect of occlusive wrap applied immediately after delivery in infants born 24–28 weeks’ gestation has been studied, but the effect is not known in infants born at less than 24<sup>0</sup>/<sub>7</sub> weeks’ gestation. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> To determine if the use of occlusive wrap applied immediately after birth in infants born at less than 24<sup>0</sup>/<sub>7</sub> weeks’ gestation results in any differences in outcomes when compared to non-wrapped infants. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Parallel exploratory randomized controlled trial with a convenience sample of 28 inborn infants born at less than 24<sup>0</sup>/<sub>7</sub> weeks’ gestation enrolled during the duration of the HeLP trial. Infants were randomized to either the wrap or standard of care (no wrap) group. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Twenty-eight infants (wrap <i>n</i> = 14; no wrap <i>n</i> = 14) were randomized and data on all infants was available for intention-to-treat analysis. There were no differences in baseline population characteristics. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (<i>n</i> = 8/14 wrap, 8/14 no wrap). There was no statistically significant difference in baseline<i></i> temperature (35.9°C, SD = 1.12, wrap vs. 35.1°C, SD = 1.16, no wrap, <i>p</i> = 0.16) or post-stabilization temperature (36.4°C, SD = 0.84, wrap vs. 36.1°C, SD = 1.2, no wrap, <i>p</i> = 0.56). There was a trend towards increased baseline temperature in the wrap group. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Application of occlusive wrap to infants born at less than 24<sup>0</sup>/<sub>7</sub> weeks’ gestation immediately after birth did not reduce mortality or effect baseline or post-stabilization temperature in this small exploratory study. This small sample provides the first estimate of treatment effect for this high-risk population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".