MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389980699 · doi:10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.279

Abstract 279: Sustained Inflation and Chest Compression versus 3:1 Chest Compression to Ventilation Ratio During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation of Asphyxiated Newborns A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

2023· article· en· W4389980699 on OpenAlexaffabout
Georg M. Schmölzer, Gerhard Pichler, Anne Lee Solevåg, Brenda Hiu Yan Law, Souvik Mitra, M. Wagner, Daniel Pfurtscheller, Maryna Yaskina, Po‐Yin Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityRoyal Alexandra HospitalWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulationRandomized controlled trialNeonatal resuscitationVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaMechanical ventilationResuscitationCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend 3:1 compression to ventilation ratio (C:V) ratio during chest compression (CC). In piglets, continuous CC superimposed by sustained inflation (CC+SI) resulted in faster time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), lower mortality, improved hemodynamics and ventilation compared to 3:1 C:V. Similar a pilot trial in preterm infants reported significant faster ROSC with CC+SI compared to 3:1 C:V. Objective: To test the hypothesis that in newborn infants receiving chest compression with CC+SI compared with 3:1 C:V time to ROSC will be reduced or increased. Design/Methods: Multicenter cluster randomized trial of CC+SI vs. 3:1 C:V in newborn infants receiving CC. Hospitals were randomized to CC+SI or 3:1 C:V for 12 months then switched to 2 nd intervention for another 12 months. Infants were eligible if bradycardic with heart rate <60/min or asystolic. Primary outcome was time to ROSC (heart rate >60 for one minute). Analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The trial was stopped to slow enrolment, Covid-19 pandemic, and funding constrains. Results: Four sites (Edmonton, Graz, Halifax, and Vienna) included infants, which were randomized to either CC+SI (n=11) and 3:1 C:V (n=14). The groups were balanced in relation to demographics and delivery room interventions.The median (IQR) time to ROSC with CC+SI was 90 (60-270)sec and with 3:1 C:V was 615 (174-780)sec (p=0.0502 - log rank, and 0.16 cox proportional hazards regression) (Figure).Survival was 9/11 (82%) with CC+SI and 7/14 (50%) with 3:1 C:V [relative risk (RR) 0.36, 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.094 to 1.42]. There were no differences in secondary outcomes between groups. Conclusion: CC+SI resulted in a reduction in time to ROSC. There was a trend towards higher survival rates with CC+SI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→