COMPARISON OF EARLY AND DELAYED UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING IN THE THIRD STAGE OF LABOUR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Umbilical cord clamping in the third stage of labour is still controversial. Early cord clamping is defined as clamping at 10, 15, 30 or 60 seconds after delivery and delayed as clamping after 60 seconds or at 2-5 minutes after delivery, when the cord stops pulsating or when the placenta is visible within the birth canal. Early clamping is one of the three components of active management of the third stage of labour, which has been used widely in modern obstetrics during the last century. However, in some northern European countries, various parts of the USA and Canada and in developing countries physiological management is preferred. Conclusions: After publication of several trials describing advantages of delayed clamping, this has recently been progressively replacing early clamping. The most important advantages of delayed cord clamping are higher haemoglobin and ferritin levels, higher iron stores, lower incidence of iron deficiency anaemia, better cardiopulmonary adaptation, lower rate of respiratory distress syndrome, and longer duration of early breastfeeding in term neonates, while there is no increase in the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage. Delayed clamping seems to bring some advantages for preterm neonates as well. However, caution is still advised because of the potential adverse effects, especially polycythaemia with hyperviscosity, hyperbilirubinaemia and respiratory distress.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".