Breast Milk and Glucose for Pain Relief in Preterm Infants: A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study goal was to compare the efficacy of expressed breast milk (EBM) versus 25% glucose on pain responses of late preterm infants during heel lancing. METHODS: In a noninferiority randomized controlled trial, a total of 113 newborns were randomized to receive EBM (experimental group [EG]) or 25% glucose (control group [CG]) before undergoing heel lancing. The primary outcome was pain intensity (Premature Infant Pain Profile [PIPP]) and a 10% noninferiority margin was established. Secondary outcomes were incidence of cry and percentage of time spent crying and adverse events. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used. RESULTS: Groups were similar regarding demographics and clinical characteristics, except for birth weight and weight at data collection day. There were lower pain scores in the CG over 3 minutes after lancing (P < .001). A higher number of infants in the CG had PIPP scores indicative of minimal pain or absence of pain (P = .002 and P = .003 on ITT analysis) at 30 seconds after lancing, and the mean difference in PIPP scores was 3 (95% confidence interval: 1.507-4.483). Lower incidence of cry (P = .001) and shorter duration of crying (P = .014) were observed for CG. Adverse events were benign and self-limited, and there was no significant difference between groups (P = .736 and P = .637 on ITT analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Results based on PIPP scores and crying time indicate poorer effects of EBM compared with 25% glucose during heel lancing. Additional studies exploring the vol and administration of EBM and its combination with other strategies such as skin-to-skin contact and sucking are necessary.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".