Ventilation with 18, 21, or 100% Oxygen during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation of Asphyxiated Piglets: A Randomized Controlled Animal Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In previous piglet experiments of profound asphyxia and cardiac arrest, recovery was similar when 21 and 100% oxygen were used for positive pressure ventilation (PPV). There was no consistent reduction in inflammation and oxidative stress in piglets ventilated with 21 or 100% oxygen. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate hypoxic resuscitation, i.e., PPV with 18% oxygen, in profoundly asphyxiated piglets with cardiac arrest. We hypothesized that resuscitation with 18% oxygen would result in less inflammation and oxidative stress compared to 21 or 100% oxygen. METHOD: Twenty-four piglets were exposed to 30 min of normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia until asystole. The piglets were randomized to PPV with 18% oxygen (n = 8), 21% oxygen (n = 8), or 100% oxygen (n = 8), and resuscitated with chest compressions and intravenous epinephrine. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was defined as an unassisted heart rate ≥100 bpm for 15 s. Lactate, GSH (total glutathione), GSSG (oxidized glutathione), and GSSG/GSH ratio were measured in myocardial and frontoparietal cortex homogenates. Interleukin (IL)-8, IL-6, IL-1β and tumor necrosis factor α were measured in frontoparietal cortex homogenates. RESULTS: There was no difference in time to ROSC or inflammation and oxidative stress in the 3 oxygen groups. CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitation with 18% oxygen did not result in differences in inflammation and oxidative stress when compared to 21 or 100% oxygen.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".