Considerations for Using Sucrose to Reduce Procedural Pain in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preterm and critically ill newborns admitted to a NICU undergo repeated skin-breaking procedures that are necessary for their survival. Sucrose is rapidly becoming the accepted clinical standard nonpharmacologic intervention for managing acute procedural pain for these infants. Although shown to be safe in single doses, only 4 studies have evaluated the effects of repeated doses of sucrose over relatively short periods of time. None has examined the use of sucrose throughout the NICU stay, and only 1 study evaluated the neurodevelopmental outcomes after repeated doses of sucrose. In that study, infants born at <31 weeks' gestational age and exposed to >10 doses per day in the first week of life were more likely to show poorer attention and motor development in the early months after discharge from the NICU. Results of studies in animal models have suggested that the mechanism of action of sucrose is through opioid pathways; however, in human infants, little has been done to examine the physiologic mechanisms involved, and the findings reported thus far have been ambiguous. Drawing from the growing animal literature of research that has examined the effects of chronic sugar exposure, we describe alternative amine and hormone pathways that are common to the processing of sucrose, attention, and motor development. In addition, a review of the latest research to examine the effects of repeated sucrose on pain processing is presented. These 2 literatures each can inform the other and can provide an impetus to initiate research to examine not only the mechanisms involved in the calming mechanisms of sucrose but also in the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of repeated sucrose in those infants born extremely preterm or critically ill.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".