Higher versus Lower Oxygen Concentration during Respiratory Support in the Delivery Room in Extremely Preterm Infants: A Pilot Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal starting oxygen concentration for delivery room resuscitation of extremely preterm infants (<29 weeks) remains unknown, with recommendations of 21-30% based on uncertain evidence. Individual patient randomized trials designed to answer this question have been hampered by poor enrolment. HYPOTHESIS: It is feasible to compare 30% vs. 60% starting oxygen for delivery room resuscitation of extremely preterm infants using a change in local hospital policy and deferred consent approach. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-center, feasibility study, with each starting oxygen concentration used for two months for all eligible infants. POPULATION: Infants born at 23 + 0-28 + 6 weeks' gestation who received delivery room resuscitation. Study interventions: Initial oxygen at 30% or 60%, increasing by 10-20% every minute for heart rate < 100 bpm, or increase to 100% for chest compressions. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Feasibility, defined by (i) achieving difference in cumulative supplied oxygen concentration between groups, and (ii) post-intervention rate consent >50%. RESULTS: = 18, 60% group) were analyzed, including limited data from eight who died or were transferred before parents could be approached. Median cumulative oxygen concentrations were significantly different between the two groups in the first 5 min. CONCLUSION: Randomized control trial of 30% or 60% oxygen at the initiation of resuscitation of extremely preterm neonates with deferred consent is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03706586.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".