Sex Differences Between Female and Male Newborn Piglets During Asphyxia, Resuscitation, and Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Male and female newborns have differences in their fetal development, fetal-to-neonatal transition, and postnatal morbidity. However, the cardiovascular fetal-to-neonatal adaption is similar between sexes. No study has examined sex differences in newborns during hypoxia, asphyxia, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, or post-resuscitation recovery. Methods Secondary analysis (two previous publications and two studies currently under peer-review) of 110 term newborn mixed breed piglets (1-3 days of age, weighing 2.0±0.2kg), which were exposed to 30min normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia until asystole, which was achieved by disconnecting the ventilator and clamping the endotracheal tube. This was followed by cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. For the analysis piglets were divided into female and male groups. Cardiac function, carotid blood flow, and cerebral and renal oxygenation were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. Results A total of 35/41 (85%) female and 54/69 (78%) male piglets resuscitated achieved ROSC (p=0.881). The median (IQR) time to achieve return of spontaneous circulation in females and males was 111 (80-228) sec and 106 (80-206)sec (p=0.875), respectively. The 4-hour survival rate was similar between females and males with 28/35 (80%) and 49/54 (91%) piglets surviving (p=0.241), respectively. Conclusions No difference between female and male newborn piglets was observed during hypoxia, asphyxia, resuscitation, and post-resuscitation recovery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".