Intranasal fentanyl and intravenous morphine did not differ for pain relief in children with closed long-bone fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In children presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute long-bone fractures, is intranasal fentanyl equivalent to intravenous (IV) morphine for pain control? Borland M, Jacobs I, King B, et al . A randomized controlled trial comparing intranasal fentanyl to intravenous morphine for managing acute pain in children in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 49 :335–40. Clinical impact ratings Paediatric emergency medicine ★★★★★★★ Emergency medicine ★★★★★★⋆ Paediatrics ★★★★★★⋆ ### ![Graphic][1]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Allocation: {concealed}*.† ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Blinding: blinded (patients, {clinicians, data collectors, outcome assessors, data analysts, and safety and monitoring committee}*).† ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Follow-up period: 30 minutes after initial analgesic administration. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Setting: tertiary pediatric ED in a hospital in Australia. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Patients: 67 patients, 7–15 years of age (mean age 11 y, 79% with radius or ulna fractures), who presented to the ED with … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".