A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinician-Led Tactile Stimulation to Reduce Pain During Vaccination in Infants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinician-led tactile stimulation (rubbing the skin adjacent to the injection site or applying pressure) has been demonstrated to reduce pain in children and adults undergoing vaccination. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of clinician-led tactile stimulation in infants undergoing vaccination. METHODS: This was a partially blinded randomized controlled trial that included infants undergoing vaccination in a private clinic in Toronto. Infants were randomly allocated to tactile stimulation or no tactile stimulation immediately prior to, during, and after vaccination. The primary outcome was infant pain, assessed using a validated observational measure, the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS; range = 0-10). RESULTS: Altogether, 121 infants participated (n = 62 tactile stimulation; n = 59 control); demographics did not differ (P > .05) between groups. MBPS scores did not differ between groups: mean = 7.2 (standard deviation = 2.4) versus 7.6 (1.9); P = .245. CONCLUSION: Tactile stimulation cannot be recommended as a strategy to reduce vaccination pain in infants because of insufficient evidence of a benefit.
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.
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 | 0.029 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it