Observational study comparing heart rate in crying and non-crying but breathing infants at birth
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stimulating infants to elicit a cry at birth is common but could result in unnecessary handling. We evaluated heart rate in infants who were crying versus non-crying but breathing immediately after birth. METHODS: within 30 s after birth were included. Background demographic data and delivery room events were recorded using tablet-based applications and synchronised with continuous heart rate data recorded by a dry-electrode electrocardiographic monitor. Heart rate centile curves for the first 3 min of life were generated with piecewise regression analysis. Odds of bradycardia and tachycardia were compared using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: 1155 crying and 54 non-crying but breathing neonates were included in the final analyses. There were no significant differences in the demographic and obstetric factors between the cohorts. Non-crying but breathing infants had higher rates of early cord clamping <60 s after birth (75.9% vs 46.5%) and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (13.0% vs 4.3%). There were no significant differences in median heart rates between the cohorts. Non-crying but breathing infants had higher odds of bradycardia (heart rate <100 beats/min, adjusted OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17) and tachycardia (heart rate ≥200 beats/min, adjusted OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.47). CONCLUSION: Infants who are quietly breathing but do not cry after birth have an increased risk of both bradycardia and tachycardia, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18148368.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it