Determining behavioural and physiological responses to pain in infants at risk for neurological impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple researchers have validated indicators and measures of infant pain. However, infants at risk for neurologic impairment (NI) have been under studied. Therefore, whether their pain responses are similar to those of other infants is unknown. Pain responses to heel lance from 149 neonates (GA>25-40 weeks) from 3 Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care units at high (Cohort A, n=54), moderate (Cohort B, n=45) and low (Cohort C, n=50) risk for NI were compared in a prospective observational cohort study. A significant Cohort by Phase interaction for total facial action (F(6,409)=3.50, p=0.0022) and 4 individual facial actions existed; with Cohort C demonstrating the most facial action. A significant Phase effect existed for increased maximum Heart Rate (F(3,431)=58.1, p=0.001), minimum Heart Rate (F(3,431)=78.7, p=0.001), maximum Oxygen saturation (F(3,425)=47.6, p=0.001), and minimum oxygen saturation (F(3,425)=12.2, p=0.001) with no Cohort differences. Cohort B had significantly higher minimum (F(2,79)=3.71, p=0.029), and mean (F(2,79)=4.04, p=0.021) fundamental cry frequencies. A significant Phase effect for low/high frequency Heart Rate Variability (HRV) ratio (F(2,216)=4.97, p=0.008) was found with the greatest decrease in Cohort A. Significant Cohort by Phase interactions existed for low and high frequency HRV. All infants responded to the most painful phase of the heel lance; however, infants at moderate and highest risk for NI exhibited decreased responses in some indicators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".