MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208185528 · doi:10.3389/fped.2021.568755

Psychosocial and Neurobiological Vulnerabilities of the Hospitalized Preterm Infant and Relevant Non-pharmacological Pain Mitigation Strategies

2021· review· en· W3208185528 on OpenAlexafffund
Ilana Shiff, Oana Bucsea, Rebecca Pillai Riddell

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHSBC Bank USA
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialPsychological interventionIntensive care medicineNeonatal intensive care unitVulnerability (computing)Narrative reviewRandomized controlled trialIntensive carePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Preterm pain is common in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), with multiple invasive procedures occurring daily. Objective: To review the psychosocial and neurobiological vulnerabilities of preterm infants and to provide an updated overview of non-pharmacological strategies for acute procedural pain in hospitalized preterm infants. Methods: We utilized a narrative review methodology, which also included a synthesis of key pieces of published systematic reviews that are relevant to the current work. Results and Conclusions: Preterm infants are uniquely susceptible to the impact of painful procedures and prolonged separation from caregivers that are often inherent in a NICU stay. Non-pharmacological interventions can be efficacious for mitigating procedural pain for preterm infants. Interventions should continue to be evaluated with high quality randomized controlled trials, and should endeavor to take into account the neurobiological and psychosocial aspects of preterm vulnerability for pain prevention and management strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207