MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002207980 · doi:10.1159/000074954

Does Sucrose Analgesia Promote Physiologic Stability in Preterm Neonates?

2003· article· en· W2002207980 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristina Boyer, Céleste Johnston, Claire‐Dominique Walker, Françoise Filion, Adam Sherrard

Bibliographic record

VenueNeonatology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboAnesthesiaGestational ageSucroseHeart rateRandomized controlled trialPulse (music)Internal medicineBlood pressurePregnancyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted with infants born <31 weeks of gestational age and recruited within 48 h of life. The infants were randomized to receive up to three doses of 0.1 ml of either 24% sucrose or sterile water (placebo) for every painful procedure during the 1st week of life. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of treating all procedural pain with sucrose on overall physiological stability. The hypotheses were that infants who received 24% sucrose for all painful procedures would be less stressed as measured by salivary cortisol, and more physiologically stable as measured by pulse rate variability than those who received placebo. Salivary cortisol was measured before and 30 min after a painful procedure, whereas the pulse rate was continuously recorded, from second to second, from a pulse oximeter. There were no group differences in the cortisol response to a painful stimulus or in pulse rate variability over time. There was, however, a significant correlation between standard deviation of pulse rate and number of doses of sucrose only in the group who received high doses of sucrose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeonatologySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207