Sucrose for Procedural Pain Management in Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of oral sucrose has been the most extensively studied pain intervention in newborn care to date. More than 150 published studies relating to sweet-taste-induced calming and analgesia in human infants have been identified, of which 100 (65%) include sucrose. With only a few exceptions, sucrose, glucose, or other sweet solutions reduced pain responses during commonly performed painful procedures in diverse populations of infants up to 12 months of age. Sucrose has been widely recommended for routine use during painful procedures in newborn and young infants, yet these recommendations have not been translated into consistent use in clinical practice. One reason may be related to important knowledge and research gaps concerning analgesic effects of sucrose. Notably, the mechanism of sweet-taste-induced analgesia is still not precisely understood, which has implications for using research evidence in practice. The aim of this article is to review what is known about the mechanisms of sucrose-induced analgesia; highlight existing evidence, knowledge gaps, and current controversies; and provide directions for future research and practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".