Four Different Finger Positions and Their Effects on Hemodynamic Changes during Chest Compression in Asphyxiated Neonatal Piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Neonatal Life Support Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations states that chest compressions (CC) be performed preferably with the 2-thumb encircling technique. The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic effects of four different finger positions during CC in a piglet model of neonatal asphyxia. Methods: Seven asphyxiated post-transitional piglets were randomized to CC with 2-thumb-, 2-finger-, knocking-fingers-, and over-the-head 2-thumb-techniques for one minute at each technique. CC superimposed with sustained inflations were performed manually. Results: Seven newborn piglets (age 0–4 days, weight 2.0–2.1 kg) were included in the study. The mean (SD) slope rise of carotid blood flow was significantly higher with the 2-thumb-technique and over-the-head 2-thumb-technique (118 (45) mL/min/s and 121 (46) mL/min/s, respectively) compared to the 2-finger-technique and knocking-finger-technique (75 (48) mL/min/s and 71 (67) mL/min/s, respectively) (p < 0.001). The mean (SD) dp/dtmin (as an expression of left ventricular function) was significantly lower with the 2-thumb-technique, with −1052 (369) mmHg/s, compared to −568 (229) mmHg/s and −578(180) mmHg/s (both p = 0.012) with the 2-finger-technique and knocking-finger-technique, respectively. Conclusion: The 2-thumb-technique and the over-the-head 2-thumb-technique resulted in improved slope rises of carotid blood flow and dp/dtmin during chest compression.
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".