Asynchronous ventilation at 120 compared with 90 or 100 compressions per minute improves haemodynamic recovery in asphyxiated newborn piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether different chest compression (CC) rates during continuous CC with asynchronous ventilations (CCaV) reduce time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and improved haemodynamic recovery in piglets aged 24-72 hours with asphyxia-induced asystole. METHODS: Thirty piglets (aged 24-72 hours) were anaesthetised, intubated, instrumented and exposed to 30 min normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia. Piglets were randomised into four groups: CCaV with CC rate of 90 (CCaV+90, n=8), 100 (CCaV+100, n=8) or 120 compressions per minute (CCaV+120, n=8), and a sham-operated group (n=6). Cardiac function, carotid blood flow, cerebral and renal oxygenation and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded. Cerebral cortical tissue was harvested and assayed for inflammatory and injury markers. RESULTS: All three intervention groups had a similar number of piglets achieving ROSC (6/8, 5/8 and 5/8 for CCaV+120, CCaV+100 and CCaV+90, respectively) and mean ROSC time (120, 90 and 90 s for CCaV+120, CCaV+100 and CCaV+90, respectively). The haemodynamic recovery (indicated by carotid flow, cerebral and renal perfusion) was similar between CCaV+120 and sham by the end of experiment. In comparison, CCaV+90 and CCaV+100 had significantly reduced haemodynamic recovery compared with sham operated (p≤0.05). Inflammatory (interleukin [IL]-6 and IL-1β) and injury markers (lactate) were significantly higher in the frontoparietal cortex of CCaV+90 and CCaV+100 compared with sham, whereas brain injury markers were similar between CCaV+120 and sham. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no difference between the groups in achieving ROSC, the haemodynamic recovery of CCaV+120 was significantly improved compared with CCaV+90 and CCaV+100, which were also associated with higher cerebral inflammatory and brain injury markers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".