A Randomized, Controlled Animal Study: 21% or 100% Oxygen during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Asphyxiated Infant Piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: During pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), resuscitation guidelines recommend 100% oxygen (O2); however, the most effective O2 concentration for infants unknown. Aim: We aimed to determine if 21% O2 during CPR with either chest compression (CC) during sustained inflation (SI) (CC + SI) or continuous chest compression with asynchronized ventilation (CCaV) will reduce time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) compared to 100% O2 in infant piglets with asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest. Methods: Piglets (20−23 days of age, weighing 6.2−10.2 kg) were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to asphyxia. Cardiac arrest was defined as mean arterial blood pressure < 25 mmHg with bradycardia. After cardiac arrest, piglets were randomized to CC + SI or CCaV with either 21% or 100% O2 or the sham. Heart rate, arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, and respiratory parameters were continuously recorded. Main results: Baseline parameters, duration, and degree of asphyxiation were not different. Median (interquartile range) time to ROSC was 107 (90−440) and 140 (105−200) s with CC + SI 21% and 100% O2, and 600 (50−600) and 600 (95−600) s with CCaV 21% and 100% O2 (p = 0.27). Overall, six (86%) and six (86%) piglets with CC + SI 21% and 100% O2, and three (43%) and three (43%) piglets achieved ROSC with CCaV 21% and 100% O2 (p = 0.13). Conclusions: In infant piglets resuscitated with CC + SI, time to ROSC reduced and survival improved compared to CCaV. The use of 21% O2 had similar time to ROSC, short-term survival, and hemodynamic recovery compared to 100% oxygen. Clinical studies comparing 21% with 100% O2 during infant CPR are warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".