Pain and distress caused by endotracheal suctioning in neonates is better quantified by behavioural than physiological items: a comparison based on item response theory modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain cannot be directly measured in neonates. Therefore, scores based on indirect behavioural signals such as crying, or physiological signs such as blood pressure, are used to quantify neonatal pain both in clinical practice and in clinical studies. The aim of this study was to determine which of the physiological and behavioural items of 2 validated pain assessment scales (COMFORT and premature infant pain profile) are best able to detect pain during endotracheal and nasal suctioning in ventilated newborns. We analysed a total of 516 PIPP and COMFORT scores from 118 newborns. A graded response model was built to describe the data and item information was calculated for each of the behavioural and physiological items. We found that the graded response model was able to well describe the data, as judged by agreement between the observed data and model simulations. Furthermore, a good agreement was found between the pain estimated by the graded response model and the investigator-assessed visual analogue scale scores (Spearman rho correlation coefficient = 0.80). The information scores for the behavioural items ranged from 1.4 to 27.2 and from 0.0282 to 0.131 for physiological items. In these data with mild to moderate pain levels, behavioural items were vastly more informative of pain and distress than were physiological items. The items that were the most informative of pain are COMFORT items "calmness/agitation," "alertness," and "facial tension."
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".