Association between Apgar scores of 7 to 9 and neonatal mortality and morbidity: population based cohort study of term infants in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between Apgar scores of 7, 8, and 9 (versus 10) at 1, 5, and 10 minutes, and neonatal mortality and morbidity. DESIGN: Population based cohort study. SETTING: Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: 1 551 436 non-malformed live singleton infants, born at term (≥37 weeks' gestation) between 1999 and 2016, with Apgar scores of ≥7 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes. EXPOSURES: Infants with Apgar scores of 7, 8, and 9 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes were compared with those with an Apgar score of 10 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Neonatal mortality and morbidity, including neonatal infections, asphyxia related complications, respiratory distress, and neonatal hypoglycaemia. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR), adjusted rate differences (aRD), and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. RESULTS: Compared with infants with an Apgar score of 10, aORs for neonatal mortality, neonatal infections, asphyxia related complications, respiratory distress, and neonatal hypoglycaemia were higher among infants with lower Apgar scores, especially at 5 and 10 minutes. For example, the aORs for respiratory distress for an Apgar score of 9 versus 10 were 2.0 (95% confidence interval 1.9 to 2.1) at 1 minute, 5.2 (5.1 to 5.4) at 5 minutes, and 12.4 (12.0 to 12.9) at 10 minutes. Compared with an Apgar score of 10 at 10 minutes, the aRD for respiratory distress was 9.5% (95% confidence interval 9.2% to 9.9%) for an Apgar score of 9 at 10 minutes, and 41.9% (37.7% to 46.4%) for an Apgar score of 7 at 10 minutes. A reduction in Apgar score from 10 at 5 minutes to 9 at 10 minutes was also associated with higher odds of neonatal morbidity, compared with a stable Apgar score of 10 at 5 and 10 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: In term non-malformed infants with Apgar scores within the normal range (7 to 10), risks of neonatal mortality and morbidity are higher among infants with lower Apgar score values, and also among those experiencing a reduction in score from 5 minutes to 10 minutes (compared with infants with stable Apgar scores of 10).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".