Pharmacological and nonpharmacological measures of pain management and treatment among neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe and quantify the pharmacological and nonpharmacological strategies used to relieve the pain/stress of neonates during hospitalization in neonatal intensive care units. METHODS: This quantitative, longitudinal, and descriptive study examined 50 neonates from neonatal intensive care unit admission to discharge. RESULTS: A total of 9,948 painful/stressful procedures were recorded (mean = 11.25 ± 6.3) per day per neonate. A total of 11,722 pain-management and relief interventions were performed, of which 11,495 (98.1%) were nonpharmacological strategies, and 227 (1.9%) were pharmacological interventions. On average, each neonate received 235 pain-management and treatment interventions during hospitalization, 13 nonpharmacological interventions per day, and one pharmacological intervention every 2 days. CONCLUSION: Neonates receive few specific measures for pain relief given the high number of painful and stressful procedures performed during hospitalization. Thus, it is essential to implement effective pain-relief protocols.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".