Chest compression rates of 60/min versus 90/min during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized controlled animal trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To compare chest compression (CC) rates of 60/min with 90/min and their effect on the time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival, hemodynamic, and respiratory parameters. We hypothesized that asphyxiated newborn piglets that received CC at 60/min vs. 90/min during cardiopulmonary resuscitation would have a shorter time to ROSC. Methods: = 7/group) were anesthetized, tracheotomized and intubated, instrumented and exposed to 45 min normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia and cardiac arrest. Piglets were randomly allocated to a CC rate of 60/min or 90/min. CC was performed using an automated CC machine using CC superimposed with sustained inflation. Hemodynamic parameters, respiratory parameters, and applied compression force were continuously measured. Results: = 1.00). Hemodynamic parameters (i.e., diastolic and mean blood pressure, carotid blood flow, stroke volume, end-diastolic volume, left ventricular contractile function) and respiratory parameters (i.e., minute ventilation, peak inflation and peak expiration flow) were all similar with a CC rate of 60/min compared to 90/min. Conclusion: Time to ROSC, hemodynamic, and respiratory parameters were not significantly different between CC rates of 60/min vs. 90/min. Different CC rates during neonatal resuscitation warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".