Procedural pain and oral glucose in preterm neonates: brain development and sex-specific effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objectives were to determine whether procedural pain and glucose exposure are associated with altered structural and functional brain development differently in preterm males and females, and neurodevelopment at 18-month corrected age. Fifty-one very preterm neonates (22 males; median [interquartile range] gestational age 27.6 [2.0] weeks) underwent 3 serial scans including T1-weighted and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at median postmenstrual weeks: 29.4, 31.9, and 41.1. Thalamus, basal ganglia, and total brain volumes were segmented. Functional resting-state MRI data were extracted from the independent-components maps. Pain was operationalized as the total number of neonatal intensive care unit-administered invasive procedures. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18-month corrected age were assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, second edition. Generalized estimating equations assessed the association of pain and glucose exposure with brain structural and functional development. More invasive procedures were independently associated with slower growth of thalamic (P < 0.001), basal ganglia (P = 0.028), and total brain volumes (P = 0.001), particularly in females. Similar relationships were observed between glucose exposure and brain volumes. Functional connectivity between thalamus and sensorimotor cortices was negatively associated with number of invasive procedures. Greater procedural pain and higher glucose exposure were related to poorer neurodevelopmental outcomes. These findings suggest that structural and functional brain development is vulnerable to procedural pain. Glucose used for analgesia does not appear to mitigate the adverse impact of pain on brain development. The vulnerability of brain development in females towards early pain is distinct from other neonatal morbidities. The link between pain and glucose with neurodevelopment suggests that these factors have long-lasting impact.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".