The Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe revisions to the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) and initial construct validation and feasibility of the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R). METHODS: The PIPP was revised to enhance validity and feasibility. To validate the PIPP-R, data from 2 randomized cross-over studies were utilized to: (1) calculate and compare PIPP and PIPP-R scores in extremely low gestational age infants undergoing a painful and nonpainful event (N=52; dataset #1) and (2) calculate and compare PIPP and PIPP-R scores in assessing the effectiveness of (a) sucrose, (b) non-nutritive sucking (NNS)+sucrose, and (c) facilitated tucking+NNS+sucrose during heel lance (N = 85; dataset #2). Pearson correlations between PIPP and PIPP-R scores were calculated, and Student t tests and 1-way analysis of variance were used to determine construct validity during painful and nonpainful events. To establish feasibility, a survey of 31 Neonatal Intensive Care Unit nurses was conducted. RESULTS: PIPP-R scores were significantly lower during nonpainful (mean, 8.3; SD = 2.9) compared with painful (mean, 9.9; SD=3.1; t95 = 4.51, P = 0.036) events in extremely low gestational age infants in dataset #1. In dataset #2, PIPP-R scores were significantly lower in infants 25 to 41 weeks gestation in the group receiving NNS+sucrose compared with the other 2 groups (F2,79 = 2.9, P<0.05). Overall, nurses rated the PIPP-R as feasible. DISCUSSION: Initial construct validation and feasibility of the PIPP-R was demonstrated. Further testing with infants of varying gestational ages, diagnoses, and pain conditions is required; as is exploration of PIPP-R in relation to other types of physiological and cognitive responses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.022 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it