Impact of stimulation among non-crying neonates with intact cord versus clamped cord on birth outcomes: observation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Stimulation of non-crying neonates after birth can help transition to spontaneous breathing. In this study, we aim to assess the impact of intact versus clamped umbilical cord on spontaneous breathing after stimulation of non-crying neonates. Methods: This is an observational study among non-crying neonates (n=3073) born in hospitals of Nepal. Non-crying neonates born vaginally at gestational age ≥34 weeks were observed for their response to stimulation with the cord intact or clamped. Obstetric characteristics of the neonates were analysed. Association of spontaneous breathing with cord management was assessed using logistic regression. Results: Among non-crying neonates, 2563 received stimulation. Of these, a higher proportion of the neonates were breathing in the group with cord intact as compared with the group cord clamped (81.1% vs 68.9%, p<0.0001). The use of bag-and-mask ventilation was lower among those who were stimulated with the cord intact than those who were stimulated with cord clamped (18.0% vs 32.4%, p<0.0001). The proportion of neonates with Apgar Score ≤3 at 1 min was lower with the cord intact than with cord clamped (7.6% vs 11.5%, p=0.001). In multivariate analysis, neonates with intact cord had 84% increased odds of spontaneous breathing (adjusted OR, 1.84; 95% CI: 1.48 to 2.29) compared with those with cord clamped. Conclusions: Stimulation of non-crying neonates with intact cord was associated with more spontaneous breathing than among infants who were stimulated with cord clamped. Intact cord stimulation may help establish spontaneous breathing in apnoeic neonates, but residual confounding variables may be contributing to the findings. This study provides evidence for further controlled research to evaluate the effect of initial steps of resuscitation with cord intact.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".