Impact of resuscitation with 100% oxygen during physiological-based cord clamping or immediate cord clamping on lung inflammation and injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined whether physiological based cord clamping (PBCC) reduces oxygen-induced lung inflammation compared to immediate cord clamping (ICC) in preterm lambs ventilated with 100% oxygen for 10 min after birth. METHODS: of 90-95%. At 1 h, the lungs were collected for analysis of oxidative stress and inflammation, including RNASeq, and compared to an unventilated control group (UVC). RESULTS: , pulmonary blood flow, mean and diastolic blood pressure during 100% oxygen ventilation. Lung markers of oxidative stress and inflammation were increased in PBCC and ICC lambs compared to UVC (all p < 0.01). IL1ß and IL6 gene expression was higher in PBCC than ICC lambs. Transcriptome analysis revealed novel pathways related to inflammation, immune response, and cytokine signalling. CONCLUSION: PBCC prevents initial hypoxia and subsequent hyperoxia from 100% oxygen ventilation, but it does not reduce lung oxidative stress, inflammation, or injury, nor the risk or severity of lung damage during high-oxygen resuscitation. IMPACT: The appropriate oxygen level to use during the initial resuscitation of preterm infants during delayed cord clamping/physiological based cord clamping is not known. We found that providing prolonged high oxygen during physiological based cord clamping to preterm lambs does not protect the preterm lung from inflammation, injury or oxidative stress compared to immediate cord clamping. The use of prolonged high oxygen during the initial resuscitation of preterm newborns should be avoided irrespective of what cord clamping strategy is being used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".