Skin to skin contact with their mothers reduced pain reactions in healthy newborn infants during a heel lance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gray L, Watt L, Blass EM. Skin-to-skin contact is analgesic in healthy newborns. Pediatrics2000 Jan; 105 : e14 . [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: Does mother to infant full body contact reduce pain in newborn infants during a heel lance? Randomised (unclear allocation concealment), blinded (assessors of heart rate and crying), controlled trial. A medical centre in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 30 healthy, full term, newborn infants (33–55 hours old, 63% girls, mean birth weight 3.3 kg). None of the infants had evidence of congenital abnormalities, medical complications, or drug exposure, and none required oxygen administration or ventilatory support. This was the initial heel lance for all of the infants. Follow up was complete. 15 infants were allocated to skin to skin contact and 15 were allocated to no contact. 15 minutes before the heel lance, all infants had safety electrodes placed on their thoracic region for heart rate monitoring, and a warming pad was wrapped around the assigned foot. Infants in the no contact group were wrapped in their receiving blankets and placed on their sides in their bassinets. Infants in the contact group wore … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.stitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.aulast%253DGray%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D105%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253De14%26rft.epage%253De14%26rft.atitle%253DSkin-to-Skin%2BContact%2BIs%2BAnalgesic%2Bin%2BHealthy%2BNewborns%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.105.1.e14%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10617751%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/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=105/1/e14&atom=%2Febnurs%2F3%2F3%2F73.atom
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".