Multicentre, randomised controlled trial of physiological-based cord clamping versus immediate cord clamping in infants with a congenital diaphragmatic hernia (PinC): statistical analysis plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infants born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) are at high risk of respiratory insufficiency and pulmonary hypertension. Routine practice includes immediate clamping of the umbilical cord and endotracheal intubation. Experimental animal studies suggest that clamping the umbilical cord guided by physiological changes and after the lungs have been aerated, named physiological-based cord clamping (PBCC), could enhance the fetal-to-neonatal transition in CDH. We describe the statistical analysis plan for the clinical trial evaluating the effects of PBCC versus immediate cord clamping on pulmonary hypertension in infants with CDH (PinC trial). DESIGN: The PinC trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in infants with isolated left-sided CDH, born ≥ 35.0 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome is the incidence of pulmonary hypertension in the first 24 h after birth. Maternal outcomes include estimated maternal blood loss. Neonatal secondary outcomes include mortality before discharge, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy, and number of days of mechanical ventilation. Infants are 1:1 randomised to either PBCC or immediate cord clamping using variable random permutated block sizes (4-8), stratified by treatment centre and estimated severity of pulmonary hypoplasia (i.e. mild/moderate/severe). At least 140 infants are needed to detect a relative reduction in pulmonary hypertension by one third, with 80% power and 0.05 significance level. A chi-square test will be used to evaluate the hypothesis that PBCC decreases the occurrence of pulmonary hypertension. This plan is written and submitted without knowledge of the collected data. The trial has been ethically approved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373902 (registered April 2020).
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".