Contact and nutrient caregiving effects on newborn infant pain responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand how the 'caregiving context' could affect responses to procedural pain, the authors sought to determine whether (1) the combined effects of sweet taste and holding (caregiving contact) were greater than the effects of either alone, (2) any combined effects were additive or interactive, and (3) the interventions had similar effects on behavioral (crying and facial activity) and physiological (heart rate, vagal tone) responses to the heel-stick procedure in newborn infants in a randomized two-factorial intervention trial. Eighty-five normally developing newborn infants were studied with a mean gestational age of 39.4 weeks on the 2nd or 3rd day of life. Infants were randomized in blocks of eight to receive (1) no holding and water taste (control participants), (2) no holding and sucrose taste (sucrose group), (3) holding and water taste (holding group), or (4) holding and sucrose taste (holding and sucrose group). Crying was reduced significantly by taste and holding, and the interventions combined additively. Facial activity was only significantly reduced by holding. For physiological measures, the interventions interacted with each other and preintervention levels to reduce heart rate and lower vagal tone more during the procedure in infants in whom heart rate and vagal tone were higher before intervention. Consequently, sweet taste and holding interventions combined in complex ways when acting on different behavioral and physiological response systems to modify stressful pain experiences. The results suggest that providing a caregiving context when painful procedures are performed may be a simple and practical method of reducing pain experience in infants, and that no one measure captures these effects.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".