Deferred Cord Clamping in Very Preterm Triplets and Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is a paucity of data with regards to benefits and harms associated with deferred cord clamping (DCC) in triplets. The objective was to compare outcomes of triplets following exposure to DCC in a national cohort admitted to the NICU in Canada with a gestational age of <33 weeks. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-representative, cohort study of triplets born before 33 weeks of gestation in a Canadian NICU. DCC was defined as cord clamping conducted after 30 s of the birth of the neonate. Our primary outcome was survival without neurological injury or late-onset sepsis, and individual outcomes of neonatal survival, severe neurological injury, and late-onset sepsis. We utilized the target trial emulation technique to analyze data considering discordant exposure, discordant outcomes, and the correlated nature of outcomes within the triplet set. RESULTS: Of the 226 sets of triplets included in the study, 100 sets had all 3 received DCC, 22 had 2/3 received DCC, 32 had 1/3 received DCC, and 72 had none received DCC for a total of 376 neonates who received DCC and 302 did not receive DCC. There was no association of benefit or harm between DCC and any of the outcomes studied in any of the analyses. Univariate comparison of outcomes indicated higher receipt of inotropes and higher length of stay among those who did not receive DCC compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, DCC was not associated with benefit or harm in very preterm triplets. .
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".