Contextual factors associated with pain response of preterm infants to heel‐stick procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that medical and demographic contextual factors (cFs) impact pain responses in preterm neonates, but the existing evidence is very heterogeneous. AIM: To explore the effect of cFs on pain responses to heel-stick procedures of preterm infants. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data collected during a randomized controlled trial examining pain response to non-pharmacological interventions across repeated heel sticks. Five heel sticks across the first 14 days of life were videotaped. Pain response was rated with the Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates (BPSN) by four raters blinded to the heel-stick phases (baseline, heel stick, recovery). Demographic and medical cFs were extracted from medical charts. Mixed single and multiple regression analyses were performed controlling for the intervention group, site and heel-stick phase. RESULTS: Apgar scores at 1 min were negatively associated with behavioural (p = 0.002) BPSN scores, while Apgar scores at 5 min after birth were positively associated with behavioural (p = 0.006) scores. Accumulated number of painful procedures (p = 0.002) and gender (p = 0.02) were positively associated with physiological scores while continuous positive airway pressure CPAP (p = 0.009) and mechanical ventilation (p = 0.005) were negatively associated. CONCLUSION: Higher exposure to painful procedures, male infants and having CPAP or mechanical ventilation were cFs associated with physiological response. The only variables significantly associated with behavioural BPSN scores were Apgar scores but these relationships were inconsistent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".