Therapeutic hypothermia as a neuroprotective strategy in newborns with perinatal asphyxia—case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Perinatal asphyxia is a public health problem and the third major cause of death among children under 5 years. Objective: Two clinical cases of newborns with perinatal asphyxia submitted to therapeutic hypothermia and the follow-up of their motor development after hospital discharge have been reported. Methods: This retrospective case report study included two newborns with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy due to perinatal asphyxia who received a hypothermia protocol at the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The two newborns and their families were followed up at the outpatient clinic and assessed using the Hammersmith Child Neurological Examination, Alberta Child Motor Scale, and Denver Developmental Screening Test-II. Results: The newborns were submitted to a 72-hour hypothermia protocol. One newborn remained for 13 days in the NICU, while the other remained for 22 days. According to the multidisciplinary team, both cases presented with typical motor development with no cerebral palsy during the follow-up. Conclusion: Both cases showed positive results and a good prognostic for motor development. Therapeutic hypothermia may be a strategy to prevent neurologic sequelae in newborns with perinatal asphyxia, including cerebral palsy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".