Order of Vaccine Injection and Infant Pain Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if acute pain response after administration of the diphtheria, polio, and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DPTaP-Hib) vaccine and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) is affected by the order in which they are given. DESIGN: Single-center, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Outpatient pediatric clinic in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy infants 2 to 6 months of age undergoing routine immunization. INTERVENTIONS: Infants received either their primary DPTaP-Hib vaccine or the PCV first, followed by the other vaccine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was infant pain during vaccine injection as assessed by a validated measure, the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS), using videotaped recordings of the procedure. In addition, parents rated pain using a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Crying (yes/no) was also measured. RESULTS: The study was conducted between July 21, 2006, and June 21, 2007. A total of 120 infants participated: 60 received the DPTaP-Hib vaccine first and 60 received the PCV first. Infant characteristics did not differ between groups. Overall mean (SD) pain scores per infant after receiving both vaccine injections were significantly lower when DPTaP-Hib was administered first compared with when PCV was administered first (MBPS score, 7.6 [1.5] vs 8.2 [1.5], P = .037; parent VAS score, 4.2 [2.3] vs 5.6 [2.6], P = .003). When given first, the DPTaP-Hib vaccine caused significantly less pain (P < .001) than the PCV, as assessed by the MBPS, VAS, and crying. CONCLUSIONS: Pain was reduced when the DPTaP-Hib vaccine was administered before the PCV in infants undergoing routine vaccination. We recommend that the order of vaccine injections be the DPTaP-Hib vaccine followed by the PCV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".