Blood Gas Interpretation Under Hypothermic Conditions: A Comparative Study of Alpha‐Stat and pH‐Stat in Neonatal Hypoxic–Ischemic Encephalopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Acid‐base management in neonates with hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) undergoing therapeutic hypothermia (TH) can use either the “alpha‐stat” or the “pH‐stat” method, which adjusts values based on temperature. Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy of two blood gas analysis techniques in predicting the severity of brain injury in neonates with HIE. Method A retrospective study was conducted on neonates over 35 weeks’ gestation who underwent TH between 2010 and 2015. Diagnostic, univariate, and multivariate analyses were performed to compare outcomes between the alpha‐sat and pH‐stat groups. Results Adjusting for sex and age, the odds ratios for being classified as hypocapnic were 4.40 (95% CI: 1.19–16.27) using the alpha‐stat method and 2.94 (95% CI 1.15–26.48) using the pH‐stat method. The classification of patients as hypocapnic, normocapnic, or hypercapnic differed significantly between the two methods ( p < 0.0001), with 23% of patients reclassified from the alpha‐stat to the pH‐stat method. Conclusion Both blood gas analysis methods were similarly effective in predicting brain injury extent. However, the alpha‐stat method significantly overestimated the lowest pCO 2 values during therapeutic hypothermia.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".