Neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants who have experienced procedural pain in the neonatal intensive care unit: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review will assess the association between painful procedures performed on preterm infants while hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit and short-, mid-, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. INTRODUCTION: Preterm infants hospitalized in the neonatal unit undergo many painful procedures. The repetition of these painful procedures in a preterm infant with an immature nervous system can have consequences for their neurodevelopment. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Prospective and retrospective observational study designs will be included in this review. Studies of preterm infants (less than 37 weeks of gestation) hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit who have undergone painful procedures, with or without skin breaking, will be considered for inclusion in this review. Our main variable will be neurodevelopment, measured in the short, medium, and long term. METHODS: A comprehensive database search will be undertaken in CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will limit the search to articles published in English or French. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal will be conducted by two independent reviewers. If possible, meta-analysis will be performed; otherwise the results will be presented by descriptive synthesis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020189762.
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 | 0.048 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.006 |
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".