Neonatal pain, parenting stress and interaction, in relation to cognitive and motor development at 8 and 18 months in preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procedural pain in the neonatal intensive care unit triggers a cascade of physiological, behavioral and hormonal disruptions which may contribute to altered neurodevelopment in infants born very preterm, who undergo prolonged hospitalization at a time of physiological immaturity and rapid brain development. The aim of this study was to examine relationships between cumulative procedural pain (number of skin-breaking procedures from birth to term, adjusted for early illness severity and overall intravenous morphine exposure), and later cognitive, motor abilities and behavior in very preterm infants at 8 and 18 months corrected chronological age (CCA), and further, to evaluate the extent to which parenting factors modulate these relationships over time. Participants were N=211 infants (n=137 born preterm 32 weeks gestational age [GA] and n=74 full-term controls) followed prospectively since birth. Infants with significant neonatal brain injury (periventricular leucomalacia, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage) and/or major sensori-neural impairments, were excluded. Poorer cognition and motor function were associated with higher number of skin-breaking procedures, independent of early illness severity, overall intravenous morphine, and exposure to postnatal steroids. The number of skin-breaking procedures as a marker of neonatal pain was closely related to days on mechanical ventilation. In general, greater overall exposure to intravenous morphine was associated with poorer motor development at 8 months, but not at 18 months CCA, however, specific protocols for morphine administration were not evaluated. Lower parenting stress modulated effects of neonatal pain, only on cognitive outcome at 18 months.
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".