MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602864176 · doi:10.1111/apa.13839

Neurophysiological assessment of acute pain in infants: a scoping review of research methods

2017· review· en· W2602864176 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Paediatrica · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNova Scotia Health Research FoundationCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program
KeywordsMedicineAcute painIntensive care medicinePain assessmentPhysical therapyPain managementAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic scoping search to describe the neurophysiological methods used in infant acute pain assessment research was conducted. Of the 2411 abstracts screened, 19 articles were retained. Nine studies utilised near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), two utilised functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and eight utilised electroencephalography (EEG). There was methodological variability in studies utilising NIRS, whereas EEG and fMRI studies reported consistent methods. Of the eight EEG studies, six identified a nociceptive-specific event-related potential. CONCLUSION: While more methodologically rigorous studies are needed, ERPs appear to hold some promise as indicators of infant nociception during clinical procedures to supplement existing measures.

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 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.340 · 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