Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping on cerebral regional tissue oxygenation: a secondary analysis of the COSGOD III trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To determine how different cord clamping strategies affect cerebral oxygenation in the first 15 min after birth in preterm infants. Methods A post-hoc secondary outcome analysis of a multicentre prospective randomised clinical trial (COSGOD III) conducted between October 2017 and October 2021 in 11 tertiary neonatal intensive care units in six countries in Europe and in Canada. In the present ancillary study, all included premature neonates (<32 weeks gestation) were retrospectively assigned to three groups according to the timing of cord clamping (G1<30 s, G2 30–60 s, G3>30 s). The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in cerebral regional oxygen saturation (crSO2) and cerebral fractional tissue oxygen extraction (cFTOE) within the first 15 min after birth in preterm neonates based on the timing of cord clamping. Results 572 infants (n=339 (G1), n=164 (G2) and n=69 (G3)) were included in the final ancillary analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in crSO2 and cFTOE between the three groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups in neonatal morbidities, particularly importantly in the degree of cerebral injury, as measured by any degree of intraventricular haemorrhage or cystic periventricular leukomalacia. Conclusions No significant differences in crSO2 and cFTOE during the first 15 min after birth were observed; however, some effect may have been modified by protocol-guided titration of supplemental oxygen in the intervention arm. Thus, in our study, we did not find a correlation between deferred cord clamping and improved cerebral oxygenation immediately after birth. Trial registration number NCT03166722 .
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".