MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414501571 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2025.09.036

Umbilical cord management in extremely preterm infants born by cesarean delivery

2025· article· en· W4414501571 on OpenAlexafffund
Haifaa Kashkari, Prakesh S. Shah, Jehier Afifi, Eugene W. Yoon, Joan Crane, Sarah D. McDonald, Marc Beltempo, Walid El‐Naggar

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of King's CollegeMemorial University of NewfoundlandDalhousie UniversityMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsUmbilical cordGestationCesarean deliverySingletonCord clampingPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Deferred cord clamping reduces mortality in preterm infants. However, there is a controversy about whether deferred cord clamping is as effective in cesarean delivery as in vaginal delivery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the mortality and short-term outcomes of extremely preterm singleton infants who received deferred cord clamping after cesarean delivery with those who received deferred cord clamping after vaginal delivery and those who received early cord clamping after cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: A national retrospective review of maternal, perinatal, and neonatal data of preterm infants born at <29 weeks of gestation who were admitted to units participating in the Canadian Neonatal Network between January 2015 and December 2022 was conducted. The rates and trends of deferred cord clamping (≥ 30 seconds) were evaluated, and the outcomes of infants who received deferred cord clamping after cesarean delivery were compared with (a) those who received deferred cord clamping after vaginal delivery and (b) those who received early cord clamping (<30 seconds) after caesarean delivery. The primary outcome was hospital mortality/severe brain injury (defined as grade 3/4 intraventricular hemorrhage and/or periventricular leukomalacia). Multivariate regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to account for clustering of infants within each site after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 6137 infants included in the study, 1952 (31.8%) received deferred cord clamping after cesarean delivery, 1804 (29.4%) received deferred cord clamping after vaginal delivery, and 2381 (38.8%) received early cord clamping after cesarean delivery at a median gestational age of 27 (interquartile range, 25-28), 26 (interquartile range, 25-28) and 26 (interquartile range, 25-28) weeks, respectively. There was a slow increase in the practice of deferred cord clamping in cesarean delivery from 32% in 2015 to approximately 50% in 2021-2022. After adjustment for potential confounders, infants who received deferred cord clamping after cesarean delivery had lower odds of a composite of mortality/severe brain injury (281/1952 [14%]) than those who received deferred cord clamping after vaginal delivery (347/1804 [19%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.87]) and those who received early cord clamping after cesarean delivery (543/2381 [23%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83]). Deferred cord clamping after cesarean delivery was not associated with changes in other adverse short-term outcomes. CONCLUSION: Deferred cord clamping was associated with a reduction in a composite of mortality/severe brain injury in singleton preterm infants born at <29 weeks of gestation via cesarean delivery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→