Influence of repeated painful procedures and sucrose analgesia on the development of hyperalgesia in newborn infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined the effects of cumulative exposure to painful needle procedures and sucrose analgesia on the development of remote hyperalgesia in newborn infants, defined as an increase in response to a normally painful stimulus at a site distal from the site of injury. One-hundred and twenty healthy newborns and 120 healthy newborn infants of diabetic mothers equally randomized to sucrose analgesia or placebo prior to all needle procedures in the first two days after birth were divided into two exposure groups according to number of needle procedures they had undergone [high (> or =5) or low (< or =4)] using the median cut-off technique. Compared to the low exposure group, infants in the high exposure group had a higher pain response during a subsequent venipuncture distal to the site of previous injury, assessed by the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) [7.1 vs. 8.4; p=0.012] and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) [2.5 cm vs. 3.2 cm; p=0.047], and a trend for longer cry duration [25.7 s vs. 33.8 s; p=0.171]. PIPP scores did not differ during a routine diaper change, suggesting a nociceptive specific mechanism for the remote hyperalgesia to venipuncture. Sucrose reduced PIPP, VAS, and cry duration scores during venipuncture, but did not prevent hyperalgesia (p>0.05). There was a preponderance of infants of diabetic mothers in the high exposure group; however, the analysis did not demonstrate this to be a confounding factor. In conclusion, sucrose analgesia for repeated painful procedures in the first day of life does not prevent development of remote hyperalgesia in newborns.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".