CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS BETWEEN POTENTIALLY PAINFUL PROCEDURES AND PAIN CONTROL STRATEGIES IN A NEONATAL UNIT
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: to describe potentially painful procedures performed in neonates and their relation with pain relief strategies. Method: a longitudinal correlational study, conducted from October to December 2014, with 50 neonates admitted to neonatal units of a public maternity hospital in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais (Brazil). Procedures were analyzed in the first two weeks of life of neonates admitted with up to three hours of life and born at the maternity hospital in which the study was conducted. Data was submitted to descriptive, comparative and correlational analyses using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software, adopting a significance level of 5%. Results: most newborns were male (n=32; 64%), premature (n=34; 69.4%) and hospitalized for having respiratory disorders (n=45; 91.8%). A total of 894 painful and of 2883 potentially painful procedures related to daily care were recorded. Non-pharmacological pain relief strategies were used in 49 (98%) neonates, while pharmacological strategies were used in nine (18%). Correlational analyses revealed the difficulty of drug treatment management and the underuse of non-pharmacological strategies as adjuvant to severe pain procedures. Conclusion: neonates underwent many potentially painful procedures, and it was found that pain relief methods are underused and that training on pain assessment and treatment is necessary in order to make these practices part of the care process.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it