Comparison of Breast Milk and Sucrose in Neonatal Pain Relief and Coping with Stress of ROP Examination Using ALPS-Neo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Examination for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is one of the procedures that can be stressful for neonates admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit. This study compared breast milk and sucrose in pain relief and coping with the stress of ROP examination using the Astrid Lindgren and Lund Children’s Hospital Pain and Stress Assessment Scale for Preterm and Sick Newborn Infants (ALPS-Neo). Methods: The present study was carried out on a total of 63 preterm infants (including breast milk group [n=21], sucrose group [n=21], and distilled water group [n=21]). The neonates were given 0.5 ml/kg of breast milk, sucrose, or distilled water 2 min before the examination. The ROP eye examinations were video recorded from 5 min before to 15 min after the examination, and infants’ pain and stress levels were assessed using the ALPS-Neo by two blinded evaluators 5 min before, during, and 5, 10, and 15 min after the examination. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed during the examinations in the mean scores of the ALPS-Neo among the three groups (P>0.05). However, there were statistically significant differences among the three groups after the examinations (P<0.05) and in the mean duration of stress adaptation (P<0.05). The duration of stress adaptation in the breast milk group was 11.4 min on average which was lower than that reported for the other groups. ConclusiConcluConclusion Conclusion: Breast milk was more effective in the reduction of pain and stress after ROP examinations, compared to sucrose or distilled water.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".