MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340409390 · doi:10.1155/2016/8458696

Development of Cardiovascular Indices of Acute Pain Responding in Infants: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W2340409390 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordana A. Waxman, Rebecca Pillai Riddell, Paula Tablon Modica, Louis A. Schmidt, Angelina Pinhasov

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsAcute painMedicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Cardiovascular indices of pain are pervasive in the hospital setting. However, no prospective research has examined the development of cardiac responses to acutely painful procedures in the first year of life. Objectives. Our main goal was to synthesize existing evidence regarding the development of cardiovascular responses to acutely painful medical procedures over the first year of life in preterm and term born infants. Methods. A systematic search retrieved 6994 articles to review against inclusion criteria. A total of 41 studies were included in the review. Results. In response to acutely painful procedures, most infants had an increase in mean heart rate (HR) that varied in magnitude both across and within gestational and postnatal ages. Research in the area of HR variability has been inconsistent, limiting conclusions. Conclusions. Longitudinal research is needed to further understand the inherent variability of cardiovascular pain responses across and within gestational and postnatal ages and the causes for the variability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207