Nurturing and quiet intervention (NeuroN‐QI) on preterm infants’ neurodevelopment and maternal stress and anxiety: A pilot randomized clinical trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Primary objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the NeuroN-QI and the study procedures. Secondary objectives are to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the NeuroN-QI by the nurses, assess the nurses' training needs about the components of the NeuroN-QI, and estimate the preliminary effects of the NeuroN-QI on infants' neurodevelopment as well as maternal stress and anxiety at infants' 36 weeks of gestational age. DESIGN: A two-group pilot parallel randomized clinical trial stratified by center. METHODS: gestational age will be randomized into an experimental or control group. Fifty nurses will be recruited. The NeuroN-QI consists of four 2-hour skin-to-skin contact sessions/week with a 15-minute auditory stimulation by mothers with controlled ambient levels of light and noise. A 1-hour quiet period will follow where infants will rest in their incubator/crib with their mother's milk for olfactory stimulation and where the light and noise control will be continued. In the control group, mother-infant dyads will do four skin-to-skin contacts per week and receive standard care. Acceptability and feasibility of the NeuroN-QI in addition to maternal stress and anxiety will be measured through questionnaires, while infants' neurodevelopment will be assessed with Assessment of Preterm Infant Behaviour and General Movement Assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial will address knowledge gaps and generate evidence in neonatal care by evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-component developmental care intervention. IMPACT: This project is an innovative step towards optimizing the neurodevelopmental trajectory of infants in NICUs and consequently promoting their long-term health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04593095.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".