MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415614319 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101144

Chest compression during sustained inflation versus 3:1 compression-to-ventilation ratio during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation of asphyxiated piglets

2025· article· en· W4415614319 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiopulmonary resuscitationResuscitationCompression (physics)AsphyxiaNeonatal resuscitationShock (circulatory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend using the 3:1 chest compression-to-ventilation (C:V) ratio technique. However, an alternative technique using continuous compressions superimposed with a high distending pressure or sustained inflation (CC+SI) may improve return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival, and post-resuscitation outcomes. Objective In a piglet model of asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest, compare time to ROSC with CC+SI or 3:1 C:V technique for providing neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Methods Secondary analysis of 132 term newborn mixed breed piglets (1-3 days of age, weighing 1.7-2.4 kg) from six different studies, which were exposed to 30-50 min of normocapnic hypoxia followed by asphyxia until cardiac arrest. This was followed by CPR with either the CC+SI or 3:1 C:V technique. Results Although the proportion of piglets achieving ROSC was similar between CC+SI and 3:1 C:V [59/83 (71%) vs. 40/49 (82%)], the time to ROSC was significantly shorter with CC+SI [median (IQR), 87.5 (66.8–147.5) vs. 120 (76.5–267) s; p = 0.0097], corresponding to a mean difference of –73.9 s (95% CI –122.5 to –25.3). Survival up to 4 h did not differ between groups (risk ratios 1.04, 95% Confidence intervals 0.82–1.32), with mean (SD) survival time among ROSC survivors of 237 (18) min for CC+SI vs 220 (55) min for 3:1 C:V (p=0.0623). In adjusted analyses, CC+SI yielded faster time to ROSC (Geometric Mean Ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.50–0.88), with no effect modification by FiO 2 , but a rate-dependent effect on time to ROSC; 4-h survival did not differ between methods. Conclusions Use of the CC+SI technique during neonatal piglet resuscitation leads to a faster ROSC, with no difference in survival.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.273 · 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