Effects of varying chest compression depths on carotid blood flow and blood pressure in asphyxiated piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend chest compressions (CCs) should be delivered to a depth of approximately 1/3 of the anterior-posterior (AP) chest diameter. The aim of the study was to investigate the haemodynamic effects of different CC depths in a neonatal piglet model. METHODS: CCs were performed with an automated CC machine with 33%, 40% and 25% AP chest diameter in all piglets in the same order for a duration of 3 min each. RESULTS: Eight newborn piglets (age 1-3 days, weight 1.7-2.3 kg) were included in the study. Carotid blood flow (CBF) and systolic blood pressure were the highest using a CC depth of 40% AP chest diameter (19.3±7.5 mL/min/kg and 58±32 mm Hg). CONCLUSION: CC depth influences haemodynamic parameters in asphyxiated newborn piglets during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The highest CBF and systolic blood pressure were achieved using a CC depth of 40% AP chest diameter. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PCTE0000148.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".