MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037239648 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228693

Effects of sustained inflation pressure during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation of asphyxiated piglets

2020· article· en· W3037239648 on OpenAlexafffund
Gyu Hong Shim, Seung Yeon Kim, Po‐Yin Cheung, Tze-Fun Lee, Megan O’Reilly, Georg M. Schmölzer

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSick Kids FoundationChildren's Hospital FoundationStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCardiopulmonary resuscitationMedicineAnesthesiaAsphyxiaOxygenationPeak inspiratory pressureHemodynamicsNeonatal resuscitationResuscitationHeart rateCardiac outputBlood pressureTidal volumeRespiratory systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sustained inflation (SI) during chest compression (CC = CC+SI) has been recently shown as an alternative method during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in neonates. However, the optimal peak inflation pressure (PIP) of SI during CC+SI to improve ROSC and hemodynamic recovery is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine if different PIPs of SI during CC+SI will improve ROSC and hemodynamic recovery in severely asphyxiated piglets. METHODS: Twenty-nine newborn piglets (1-3 days old) were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented and exposed to 30-min normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia. Piglets were randomized into four groups: CC+SI with a PIP of 10 cmH2O (CC+SI_PIP_10, n = 8), a PIP of 20 cmH2O (CC+SI_PIP_20, n = 8), a PIP of 30 cmH2O (CC+SI_PIP_30, n = 8), and a sham-operated control group (n = 5). Heart rate, arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, cerebral oxygenation, and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. RESULTS: Baseline parameters were similar between all groups. There was no difference in asphyxiation (duration and degree) between intervention groups. PIP correlated positively with tidal volume (VT) and inversely with exhaled CO2 during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Time to ROSC and rate of ROSC were similar between piglets resuscitated with CC+SI_PIP_10, CC+SI_PIP_20, and CC+SI_PIP_30 cmH2O: median (IQR) 75 (63-193) sec, 94 (78-210) sec, and 85 (70-90) sec; 5/8 (63%), 7/8 (88%), and 3/8 (38%) (p = 0.56 and p = 0.12, respectively). All piglets that achieved ROSC survived to four hours post-resuscitation. Piglets resuscitated with CC+SI_PIP_30 cmH2O exhibited increased concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-1β and tumour necrosis factor-α in the frontoparietal cerebral cortex (both p<0.05 vs. sham-operated controls). CONCLUSION: In asphyxiated term newborn piglets resuscitated by CC+SI, the use of different PIPs resulted in similar time to ROSC, but PIP at 30 cmH2O showed a larger VT delivery, lower exhaled CO2 and increased tissue inflammatory markers in the brain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207