Mechanisms of Sucrose and Non‐Nutritive Sucking in Procedural Pain Management in Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The administration of sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking (NNS) has been examined for relieving procedural pain in newborn infants. The calming and pain-relieving effects of sucrose are thought to be mediated by endogenous opioid pathways activated by sweet taste. The orogustatory effects of sucrose have been demonstrated in animal newborns, and in preterm and full term human infants during painful procedures. In contrast to sucrose, the analgesic effects of NNS are hypothesized to be activated through nonopioid pathways by stimulation of orotactile and mechanoreceptor mechanisms. Although there is uncertainty as to whether the effects of sucrose and NNS are synergistic or additive, there is sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of combining the two interventions for procedural pain relief in infants. In this review article, the underlying mechanisms of sucrose and NNS, separately and in combination for relieving procedural pain in preterm and full term infants, are examined. Clinical and research implications are addressed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".