Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for prevention or treatment of pain in newborns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To determine the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of procedural/postoperative pain or pain associated with clinical conditions in neonates. Secondary objective To review the effect of the various doses and routes of administration (enteral,intravenous or rectal) of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of pain in neonates. We will design the main comparisons according to intention of use: paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of pain. We will include separate comparisons based on the painful intervention/procedure/condition (heel lance, insertion of nasogastric tube, insertion of intravenous catheter, lumbar puncture, postoperative pain, birth trauma, congenital anomalies (myelomeningocoele, open cutaneous lesions)) and the mode of administration of paracetamol. Within these comparisons we will assess in subgroups (when possible) the effects based on postmenstrual age (PMA) at birth of the randomised infants (under 28 weeks, 28 weeks to less than 32 weeks, 32 weeks to less than 37 weeks and 37 weeks or more) or based on birth weight (or current weight) categories (1000 g or less, 1001 g to 1500 g, 1501 g to 2500 g and 2501 g or more).
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.008 |
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".