A longitudinal observational study on the epidemiology of painful procedures and sucrose administration in hospitalized preterm neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although sucrose is widely administered to hospitalized infants for single painful procedures, total sucrose volume during the entire neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay and associated adverse events are unknown. In a longitudinal observation study, we aimed to quantify and contextualize sucrose administration during the NICU stay. Specifically, we investigated the frequency, nature, and severity of painful procedures; proportion of procedures where neonates received sucrose; total volume of sucrose administered for painful procedures; and incidence and type of adverse events. Neonates <32 weeks gestational age at birth and <10 days of life were recruited from four Canadian tertiary NICUs. Daily chart reviews of documented painful procedures, sucrose administration, and any associated adverse events were undertaken. One hundred sixty-eight neonates underwent a total of 9093 skin-breaking procedures (mean 54.1 [±65.2] procedures/neonate or 1.1 [±0.9] procedures/day/neonate) during an average NICU stay of 45.9 (±31.4) days. Pain severity was recorded for 5399/9093 (59.4%) of the painful procedures; the majority (5051 [93.5%]) were heel lances of moderate pain intensity. Sucrose was administered for 7839/9093 (86.2%) of painful procedures. The total average sucrose volume was 5.5 (±5.4) mL/neonate or 0.11 (±0.08) mL/neonate/day. Infants experienced an average of 7.9 (±12.7) minor adverse events associated with pain and/or sucrose administration that resolved without intervention. The total number of painful procedures, sucrose volume, and incidence of adverse events throughout the NICU stay were described addressing an important knowledge gap in neonatal pain. These data provide a baseline for examining the association between total sucrose volume during NICU stay and research on longer-term behavioral and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".