Cumulative sucrose exposure for repeated procedural pain in preterm neonates and neurodevelopment at 18 months of corrected age: a prospective observational longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Oral sucrose is repeatedly administered to neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to treat pain from commonly performed procedures; however, there is limited evidence on its long-term cumulative effect on neurodevelopment. We examined the association between total sucrose volumes administered to preterm neonates for pain mitigation in the NICU and their neurodevelopment at 18 months of corrected age (CA). METHODS: A prospective longitudinal single-arm observational study that enrolled hospitalised preterm neonates <32 weeks of gestational age at birth and <10 days of life was conducted in four level III NICUs in Canada. Neonates received 0.1 mL of 24% sucrose 2 min prior to all commonly performed painful procedures during their NICU stay. Neurodevelopment was assessed at 18 months of CA using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III). Multiple neonatal and maternal factors known to affect development were adjusted for in the generalised linear model analysis. RESULTS: 172 preterm neonates were enrolled and 118 were included in the analysis at 18 months of CA. The total mean sucrose volume administered/neonate/NICU stay was 5.96 (±5.6) mL, and the mean Bayley-III composite scores were: cognitive 91 (±17), language 86 (±18) and motor 88 (±18). There was no association between Bayley-III scores and the total sucrose volume: cognitive (p=0.57), language (p=0.42) and motor (p=0.70). CONCLUSION: Cumulative sucrose exposure for repeated procedural pain in preterm neonates was neither associated with a delay in neurodevelopment nor neuroprotective effects at 18 months of CA. If sucrose is used, we suggest the minimally effective dose combined with other non-pharmacological interventions with demonstrated effectiveness such as skin-to-skin contact, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking and swaddling. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02725814.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".