Milking of the Cut Cord During Stabilization of Infants Born Very Premature: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of cut-umbilical cord milking (C-UCM) during stabilization of preterm infants after birth. STUDY DESIGN: This was a pilot randomized controlled trial of initial resuscitation. Infants born to eligible, consenting women presenting in preterm labor at <32 weeks' gestation were randomized to receive either the standard practice of deferred cord clamping (DCC) for 30-60 seconds at birth or C-UCM while supporting breathing and following 30 seconds of DCC. The primary outcome was feasibility in terms of percentage recruitment, intervention compliance, safety, and study completion. Short-term clinical outcomes were collected. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Of the 133 pregnant women approached, 93 consented to participate (70%). Fifty infants delivered <32 weeks' gestation were randomized to either C-UCM (25) or DCC (25). Baseline characteristics of infants were similar. All participants completed the study. One infant in the C-UCM group and 5 infants in the DCC group did not receive the allocated intervention. Median (IQR) time to cord milking was 62 (54, 99) seconds and median (IQR) length of the cut-cord milked was 20 (14, 29) cm. C-UCM was not associated with increased adverse effects compared with DCC. CONCLUSION: Milking of the long-cut cord after 30 seconds of DCC while supporting breathing was feasible and not associated with significant adverse effects. A larger randomized controlled trial is required to assess the efficacy and safety of this approach on clinical outcomes. C-UCM may be especially useful in situations when DCC is not feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03852134.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".