Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div><p>Pediatric patients usually experience high levels of pain and distress due to venipuncture. This randomised study aimed to evaluate the effects of virtual reality-based preprocedural education in comparison with video-based education in terms of pain and distress experienced by children scheduled to undergo venipuncture. Ninety children aged 4–8 years who were scheduled to undergo venipuncture surgery were randomly assigned to either a video or virtual reality group. Children in the video group received preprocedural education on venipuncture via a video displayed on a tablet and those in the virtual reality group received the same education via a head-mounted virtual reality display unit. The educational content for the two groups was identical. An independent assessor blinded to the group assignment observed the children’s behavior and determined their Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale scores, parental satisfaction score, procedure-related outcomes, venipuncture time, number of repeated procedures and difficulty score for the procedure. The virtual reality group experienced less pain and distress, as indicated by their Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale scores compared with the video group (5.0 [5.0–8.0] vs. 7.0 [5.0–9.0], <i>P</i> = 0.027). There were no significant intergroup differences in parental satisfaction scores or procedure-related outcomes. For pediatric patients scheduled to undergo venipuncture, preprocedural education via a head-mounted display for immersive virtual reality was more effective compared with video-based education via a tablet in terms of reducing pain and distress.</p></div>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.318 | 0.028 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".