Behavioral Responses to Pain Are Heightened After Clustered Care in Preterm Infants Born Between 30 and 32 Weeks Gestational Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare biobehavioral pain responses of preterm infants born at differing gestational ages (GAs) when pain was preceded by a rest period or by a series of routine nursing interventions. METHODS: In a randomized, within subjects, cross-over design, facial (Neonatal Facial Coding System), sleep/wake state and heart rate (HR) responses of 43 preterm infants [mean birth weight: 1303 g (range 590 g to 2345 g); mean GA at birth: 30 weeks (range 25 to 32)] were examined across 3 phases of blood collection (Baseline, Lance, and Recovery) under 2 conditions: pain after a 30-minute rest period versus pain after a series of routine nursing interventions (clustered care). Infant behavioral responses were coded from continuous bedside videotapes. HR was analyzed using custom physiologic signal processing software. RESULTS: Infants born at earlier GA (<30 wk) had equally intense facial responses during the Lance phase regardless of condition. However, later born infants (> or =30 wk GA) showed heightened facial responses indicative of sensitized responses during blood collection when it was preceded by clustered care (P=0.05). Moreover, later born infants had significantly lower facial (P=0.05) and HR (P=0.04) reactivity during Recovery when blood collection followed clustered care. DISCUSSION: Earlier born preterm infants showed heightened states of arousal and poor ability to modulate HR during Recovery when an invasive procedure was preceded by routine tactile nursing procedures. Alternatively, later born infants exhibited sensitized responses when clustered care preceded blood collection. Our findings support the importance of cue based individualized approaches to care.
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 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 | 0.008 | 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".