Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the convergent validity of two measures of pain (premature infant pain profile (PIPP) and crying, requires oxygen, increased vital signs, expression, and sleepless (CRIES)) in real life postoperative pain assessment in infants. METHODS: This study was a prospective, repeated measures, correlational design. Two staff nurses were randomly assigned either the PIPP or CRIES measure. An expert rater assessed each infant after surgery, and once a day using the visual analogue scale (VAS). SETTING: A level III neonatal intensive care unit in a metropolitan university affiliated paediatric hospital. RESULTS: Pain was assessed in 51 neonates (28-42 weeks of gestational age) after surgery. There was no significant difference in the rates of change between the pain assessment measures across time using repeated measures analysis of variance (F(50,2) = 0.62, p = 0.540), indicating correlation between the measures. Convergent validity analysis using intraclass correlation showed correlation, most evident in the first 24 hours (immediately, 4, 8, 20, and 24 hours after the operation). Correlations were more divergent at 40 and 72 hours after surgery. No significant interactions were found between gestational age and measure (F(304,4) = 0.75, p = 0.563) and surgical group and measure (F(304,2) = 0.39, p = 0.680). CONCLUSIONS: PIPP and CRIES are valid measures that correlate with pain for the first 72 hours after surgery in term and preterm infants. Both measures would provide healthcare professionals with an objective measure of a neonatal patient's pain.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".