Considerations on the Use of Neonatal and Pediatric Resuscitation Guidelines for Hospitalized Neonates and Infants: On Behalf of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the American Academy of Pediatrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 0.25% and 3% of admissions to the NICU, PICU, and PCICU receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Most CPR events occur in patients <1 year old. The incidence of CPR is 10 times higher in the NICU than at birth. Therefore, optimizing the approach to CPR in hospitalized neonates and infants is important. At birth, the resuscitation of newborns is performed according to neonatal resuscitation guidelines. In older infants and children, resuscitation is performed according to pediatric resuscitation guidelines. Neonatal and pediatric guidelines differ in several important ways. There are no published recommendations to guide the transition from neonatal to pediatric guidelines. Therefore, hospitalized neonates and infants can be resuscitated using neonatal guidelines, pediatric guidelines, or a hybrid approach. This report summarizes the current neonatal and pediatric resuscitation guidelines, considers how to apply them to hospitalized neonates and infants, and identifies knowledge gaps and future priorities. The lack of strong scientific data makes it impossible to provide definitive recommendations on when to transition from neonatal to pediatric resuscitation guidelines. Therefore, it is up to health care teams and institutions to decide if neonatal or pediatric guidelines are the best choice in a given location or situation, considering local circumstances, health care team preferences, and resource limitations.
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 | 0.030 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".