Preterm infants receiving heel lance procedures have slightly lower pain scores and quicker time to return to baseline heart rate when held in kangaroo care by the mother than by the father
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Johnston CC, Campbell-Yeo M, Filion F. Paternal vs maternal kangaroo care for procedural pain in preterm neonates: a randomized crossover trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:792–6.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Kangaroo care (KC) is the practice of skin-to-skin contact between a parent and their infant. Although initially introduced for low-birthweight infants in Columbia because of scarce resources and high-neonatal morbidity,1 KC has been widely adopted in both underdeveloped and developed countries. Benefits include reduction in mortality, infection and hospital length of stay and improved breastfeeding and maternal–infant bonding.2 ,3 KC has also been shown to reduce procedural pain,4 but studies have focused on maternal rather than paternal KC. As fathers are increasingly actively participating in their infant's care, including provision of KC, it is important to determine whether paternal KC has the same effect on neonatal pain. … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BPediatrics%2Band%2BAdolescent%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BPediatr%2BAdolesc%2BMed%26rft.issn%253D0002-922X%26rft.aulast%253DJohnston%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%2BC.%26rft.volume%253D165%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D792%26rft.epage%253D796%26rft.atitle%253DPaternal%2Bvs%2BMaternal%2BKangaroo%2BCare%2Bfor%2BProcedural%2BPain%2Bin%2BPreterm%2BNeonates%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BCrossover%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchpediatrics.2011.130%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21893645%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.130&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21893645&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F17%2F5%2F153.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000294537100004&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".