Pain response to M-M-R vaccination in 4-6 year old children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differences in pain response to two different M-M-R products have previously been demonstrated in 12-month old infants and in 4 â 6 year old children. Objective To determine if the acute and immediate pain response to two licensed M-M-R vaccine products (using a self-report measure) in children 4-6 years of age was similar to that demonstrated in younger infants. METHODS: Randomized, double blind, study. Subjects were randomly allocated to PriorixA (SmithKline Beecham) or M-M-R IIA (Merck Frosst). The primary outcome measure was pain response to vaccination quantified using a self-report OUCHER pain scale. Secondary outcome measures included pain measurement by proxy (physician and parent) using a visual analog scale (VAS) and measurement of cry and cry duration immediately post-vaccination. RESULTS: Of the 60 subjects enrolled, 30 received PriorixA and 30 received M-M-R IIA. There were no significant differences between the two groups on age, sex, or previous painful procedure. Post-vaccination, children in the M-M-R IIA group had higher median pain scores compared with children in the PriorixA group for VAS (12.5 vs. 2.0, respectively by paediatricians, p=0.017; 18.5 vs. 5.0, respectively by parents, p=0.235), OUCHER (20 vs. 0.00, respectively, p=0.047). The median duration of crying post M-M-R IIA was higher compared with PriorixA (6 vs. 0 seconds, respectively, p=0.020). Conclusion PriorixA was associated with significantly less pain compared with M-M-R IIA, at the time of injection.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".