Neonatal Pain and Developmental Outcomes in Children Born Preterm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonates cared for in neonatal intensive care units are exposed to many painful and stressful procedures that, cumulatively, could impact later neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, a systematic analysis of these effects is yet to be reported. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to review empirical studies examining the association between early neonatal pain experiences of preterm infants and the subsequent developmental outcomes of these children across different ages. METHODS: The literature search was performed using the PubMed, PsycINFO, Lilacs, and SciELO databases and included the following key words: "pain," "preterm," and "development." In addition, a complementary search was performed in online journals that published pain and developmental studies to ensure all of the target studies had been found. The data were extracted according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were analyzed. In infants born extremely preterm (gestational age ≤29 wk) greater numbers of painful procedures were associated with delayed postnatal growth, with poor early neurodevelopment, high cortical activation, and with altered brain development. In toddlers born very preterm (gestational age ≤32 wk) biobehavioral pain reactivity-recovery scores were associated with negative affectivity temperament. Furthermore, greater numbers of neonatal painful experiences were associated with a poor quality of cognitive and motor development at 1 year of age and changes in cortical rhythmicity and cortical thickness in children at 7 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: For infants born preterm, neonatal pain-related stress was associated with alterations in both early and in later developmental outcomes. Few longitudinal studies examined the impact of neonatal pain in the long-term development of children born preterm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".