A Systematic Review of Assessments and Interventions for Chronic Pain in Young Children With or at High Risk for Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is common in children with cerebral palsy. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence regarding assessments and interventions for chronic pain in children aged ≤2 years with or at high risk for cerebral palsy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed. Included articles were screened using PRISMA guidelines and quality of evidence was reviewed using best-evidence tools by independent reviewers. Using social media channels, an online survey was conducted to elicit parent preferences. RESULTS: Six articles met criteria. Parent perception was an assessment option. Three pharmacologic interventions (gabapentin, medical cannabis, botulinum toxin type A) and 1 nonpharmacologic intervention were identified. Parent survey report parent-comfort and other nonpharmacologic interventions ranked as most preferable. CONCLUSION: A conditional GRADE recommendation was in favor of parent report for pain assessment. Clinical trials are sorely needed because of the lack of evidence for safety and efficacy of pharmacologic interventions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".