Safety of Morphine in Nonintubated Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety of morphine for procedural pain management in nonintubated infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study comparing nonintubated infants undergoing central line placement who received morphine during the procedure with a sex and age-matched group who did not receive morphine. The incidence of clinically significant respiratory depression and hypotension, defined as requiring intervention (ie, bag/mask ventilation, increased ventilatory support, and naloxone reversal for respiratory depression and saline volume expansion and inotropes for hypotension), were compared between groups using chi test. RESULTS: There were no differences (P>0.05) between morphine (N=43) and no morphine (N=43) groups in gestational age [34.2 (4.6) vs. 34.6 (3.8) wk; P=0.63], postnatal age [13.7 (22.6) vs. 12.3 (15) wk; P=0.73], and weight [2.3 kg (0.9) for both groups]. Five (11.6%) morphine-treated infants experienced respiratory depression compared with none (0%) in the no morphine group (P=0.02); removal of 2 overdosed infants in the morphine group reduced the incidence to 7.3%, which was not significantly different from 0% in the no morphine group (P=0.07). There were no cases of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Morphine administration was associated with respiratory depression but not hypotension when administered to nonintubated infants undergoing central line placement. Morphine should be used with caution in this population.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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".