Does Prone or Supine Position Influence Pain Responses in Preterm Infants at 32 Weeks Gestational Age?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of prone and supine position in preterm infants during acute pain of blood collection. SETTING: Level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-eight preterm infants (birthweight 1339 [590-2525] g, GA 29 [25- 32] wks) were in 2 groups depending on their position in the isolette prior to and during heel lance at 32 weeks post-conceptional age. The study design was a comparison between groups (Prone, Supine) during 2 events (Baseline, Heel lance). OUTCOME MEASURE: Pain measures were multidimensional, including behavioral (sleep-wake state and facial activity) and physiological (heart rate) responses measured continuously prior to (Baseline) and during blood collection (Lance). RESULTS: Both groups of infants displayed statistically significant shifts in sleep-wake state to greater arousal, and increased facial activity and heart rate, from Baseline to Lance. Prone position was associated with significantly more deep sleep during Baseline, compared with Supine position, but there were no differences in sleep-wake state during Lance. Minor increased facial activity was shown in some time segments of Baseline for infants in Supine compared with Prone, but did not differ overall between positions. Prone and Supine position did not affect heart rate significantly during Baseline or Lance events. CONCLUSIONS: Prone position promotes deep sleep in preterm neonates at 32 weeks post-conceptional age when they are undisturbed. However, placement in prone position is not a sufficient environmental comfort intervention for painful invasive procedures such as heel lance for blood sampling in the NICU. Neonates require other environmental supports to promote coping with this stressful event.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".