Single versus continuous sustained inflations during chest compressions and physiological-based cord clamping in asystolic lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The feasibility and benefits of continuous sustained inflations (SIs) during chest compressions (CCs) during delayed cord clamping (physiological-based cord clamping; PBCC) are not known. We aimed to determine whether continuous SIs during CCs would reduce the time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and improve post-asphyxial blood pressures and flows in asystolic newborn lambs. Methods Fetal sheep were surgically instrumented immediately prior to delivery at ~139 days’ gestation and asphyxia induced until lambs reached asystole. Lambs were randomised to either immediate cord clamping (ICC) or PBCC. Lambs then received a single SI (SIsing; 30 s at 30 cmH2O) followed by intermittent positive pressure ventilation, or continuous SIs (SIcont: 30 s duration with 1 s break). We thus examined 4 groups: ICC +SIsing, ICC +SIcont, PBCC +SIsing, and PBCC +SIcont. Chest compressions and epinephrine administration followed international guidelines. PBCC lambs underwent cord clamping 10 min after ROSC. Physiological and oxygenation variables were measured throughout. Results The time taken to achieve ROSC was not different between groups (mean (SD) 4.3±2.9 min). Mean and diastolic blood pressure was higher during chest compressions in PBCC lambs compared with ICC lambs, but no effect of SIs was observed. SIcont significantly reduced pulmonary blood flow, diastolic blood pressure and oxygenation after ROSC compared with SIsing. Conclusion We found no significant benefit of SIcont over SIsing during CPR on the time to ROSC or on post-ROSC haemodynamics, but did demonstrate the feasibility of continuous SIs during advanced CPR on an intact umbilical cord. Longer-term studies are recommended before this technique is used routinely in clinical practice.
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) | 0.001 | 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".