MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989873112 · doi:10.3389/fped.2019.00486

Is Supplemental Oxygen Needed in Cardiac Compression?—The Influence of Oxygen on Cerebral Perfusion in Severely Asphyxiated Neonates With Bradycardia or Cardiac Asystole

2019· review· en· W2989873112 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne Lee Solevåg, Georg M. Schmölzer, Po‐Yin Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAsystoleMedicineBradycardiaAnesthesiaPerfusionCardiologyCerebral perfusion pressureOxygenInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Previous studies have investigated hemodynamic recovery using 21% versus 100% oxygen during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with chest compression (CC) in term infants. Animal studies indicate that systemic circulatory recovery is the same whether 21% or 100% oxygen is used during neonatal CPR. One of the main goals of resuscitation is to maintain cerebral oxygen delivery and prevent cerebral hypo- and hyperoxygenation. Oxygen delivery to the brain depends on cerebral hemodynamics, concentration of inhaled oxygen and blood oxygen content. The aim of this paper was to synthesize available research about cerebral oxygen delivery during CPR using different oxygen concentrations. Our research questions included how do different oxygen concentrations during CPR with CC influence cerebral perfusion and oxygen delivery, and how do cerebral hemodynamics during CC influence outcomes. Methods A search in Medline Ovid using the search terms hypoxia AND oxygen AND cerebrovascular circulation AND infant, newborn. Inclusion criteria included studies of hypoxia and resuscitation of term infants. Studies were excluded if no measures of cerebral blood flow, oxygenation, or perfusion were reported. Results The search retrieved 21 papers. None of the studies directly fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The reference lists of some of the retrieved papers provided relevant animal studies with slightly conflicting results regarding blood flow and oxygen delivery to the brain using 21% or 100% oxygen. No study in term infants was identified, but we included one study in preterm infants. Studies in asphyxiated animals indicate that 100% oxygen increases cerebral blood flow and oxygenation during and after CC with a potential increase in oxidative stress. Conclusion In asphyxia, cerebral autoregulation may be impaired. Pure oxygen administration during CC may result in cerebral hyperperfusion and increased cerebral oxygen delivery, which may be associated with oxidative stress-related damage to the brain tissue. As systemic circulatory recovery is the same whether 21% or 100% oxygen is used during neonatal CPR, it is important to investigate whether brain damage could be aggravated when 100% oxygen is used.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207