Abstracts of the 7th International Symposium on Pediatric Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is published on pain and related comfort issues in infants born HIV+, in contrast to the large body of literature available on the presence of pain in HIV+ adults.Infant HIV is perceived to be predominantly a third world problem, posing a unique set of challenges and management problems.The exact number of HIV+ children/infants in Sub Saharan Africa is not known.An estimated 25.4 million people in this region were HIV+ (2004), with 60% of child deaths in Africa attributed to HIV/AIDS.The pain management and assessment of infant HIV is challenging due to: a lack of knowledge and specific training, lack of resources and staff shortages, and pain management not being seen as a treatment priority.Pain assessment is complicated by, amongst others, the lack of a specific method to measure pain and treatment efficacy as HIV+ infants respond to pain differently when compared to other sick infants.Retrospective data analysis on 128 infant HIV deaths at the Red Cross Hospital during 2002-2004 showed that pain and discomfort are related to respiratory related infections, sepsis and failure to thrive in addition to gastrointestinal and neurological infections.Pain management was found to be inadequate due to the inability to measure pain, fear of opioids and lack of knowledge.This led to the development of the Paediatric HIV (PED-HIV) Scale and the Touch Visual Pain (TVP) Scale.The TVP Scale was developed to measure pain and treatment efficacy in HIV+ infants.This scale includes a physical examination of the infant as well as observations.In addition, the PEDHIV Scale was developed to document the development of the disease in the infant.Collaboration and the exchange of knowledge and information between first and third world health practitioners is vital for the future management of pain and discomfort associated with infant HIV/AIDS. 2.101.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.174 | 0.076 |
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".