Asphyxiated Female and Male Newborn Piglets Have Similar Outcomes With Different Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Male newborns have a greater risk of poor cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes compared to females. The mechanisms associated with the “male disadvantage” remains unclear. We have previously shown no difference between male and female newborn piglets during hypoxia, asphyxia, resuscitation, and post-resuscitation recovery. However, it is unknown if there are differences in resuscitation outcomes between males and females during different cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques. Intervention and Measurements: Secondary analysis of 184 term newborn mixed breed duroc piglets (1–3 days of age, weighing 2.0 (0.2) kg) from seven different studies, which were exposed to 30–50 min of normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia until asystole. This was followed by cardiopulmonary resuscitation. For the analysis, piglets were divided into male and female groups, as well as resuscitation technique groups (sustained inflation, 3:1 compression-to-ventilation ratio, or asynchronous ventilations during chest compressions). Cardiac function, carotid blood flow, and cerebral oxygenation were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. Main results: Regardless of resuscitation technique, there was no significant difference between males and females in the number achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) [95/123 (77%) vs. 48/61 (79%)], the time to achieve ROSC [112 (80–185) s vs. 110 (77–186) s], and the 4-h survival rate [81/95 (85%) vs. 40/48 (83%)]. Levels of the injury markers interleukin (IL)−1ß, IL-6, IL-8, and tumor necrosis factor-α in frontoparietal cortex tissue homogenates were similar between males and females. Conclusions: Regardless of resuscitation technique, there was no significant effect of sex on resuscitation outcome, survival, and hemodynamic recovery in asphyxiated newborn piglets.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".