Parent Cardiac Response in the Context of Their Child’s Completion of the Cold Pressor Task: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents’ ability to regulate their emotions is essential to providing supportive caregiving behaviours when their child is in pain. Extant research focuses on parent self-reported experience or observable behavioural responses. Physiological responding, such as heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV), is critical to the experience and regulation of emotions and provides a complementary perspective on parent experience; yet, it is scarcely assessed. This pilot study examined parent (n = 25) cardiac response (HR, HRV) at rest (neutral film clip), immediately before the cold pressor task (pre-CPT), and following the CPT (post-CPT). Further, variables that may influence changes in HR and HRV in the context of pediatric pain were investigated, including (1) initial HRV, and (2) parent perception of their child’s typical response to needle procedures. Time-domain (root mean square of successive differences; RMSSD) and frequency-domain (high-frequency heart rate variability; HF-HRV) parameters of HRV were computed. HR and HF-HRV varied as a function of time block. Typical negative responses to needle pain related to higher parental HR and lower HRV at rest. Parents with higher HRV at baseline experienced the greatest decreases in HRV after the CPT. Consequently, considering previous experience with pain and resting HRV levels are relevant to understanding parent physiological responses before and after child 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".