Painful procedures and pain management in newborns admitted to an intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize painful procedures, analgesic strategies, vital signs, and pain scores in hospitalized newborns. METHOD: This is a primary, observational, prospective clinical study, developed in a Brazilian public hospital. Demographic data, painful procedures, pain relief measures, vital signs, and pain scores were collected from the clinical records of 90 newborns admitted to the intensive care unit and evaluated between admission and the third day of admission. For statistical analysis, the software Statistic Package for the Social Sciences and the R Software were used. RESULTS: Newborns underwent 2,732 painful procedures, 540 non-pharmacological and 216 pharmacological strategies. The most frequently performed procedure was the heel prick (20.96%). The most commonly recorded non-pharmacological strategy was dim lighting (28.33%) and continuous fentanyl (48.83%) was the main pharmacological measure adopted. Pain score and vital signs show variability in the period evaluated. CONCLUSION: Despite the high number of painful procedures, pain assessment records do not reflect procedural pain and the use of analgesic strategies was insufficient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".