Efficacy and Safety of Acupuncture in Preterm and Term Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the paper was to review the literature about safety and efficiency of acupuncture therapy in term and preterm infants. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a predefined algorithm, reviewed abstracts from the Pediatric Academic Society annual meetings (2000-2012), and performed a manual search of references in narrative and systematic reviews. A total of 26 studies identified met our search criteria. Only 6 of these studies met our inclusion criteria; however, two studies had to be excluded because the manuscripts were published in Chinese. Hence, only four studies were included in our analysis. Three of the four studies evaluated the effects of acupuncture on infantile colic, and one assessed pain reduction during minor painful procedures in preterm babies. The limited data available suggests that acupuncture could be a safe nonpharmacologic treatment option for pain reduction in term and preterm infants and could also be a non-pharmacologic treatment option to treat infantile colic. Currently acupuncture in infants should be limited to clinical trials and studies evaluating short- and long-term effects and should be performed only by practitioners with adequate training and experience in neonatal/pediatric acupuncture.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".