EFICACIA DE LA VEROPUNCIÓN DE LA MANO VERSUS PUNCIÓN DEL TALÓN PARA LA TOMA DE MUESTRA EN EL RECIÉN NACIDO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of venipuncture of the hand vs. heel puncture for metabolic screening in newborns.Material and Methods:Observational and retrospective Systematic Review, the search has been restricted to full -text articles, and the selected articles were subjected to a critical reading using Jover's assessment to identify their degree of evidence.Results: In the final selection, 10 articles were selected.We found that 50% corresponded to Spain, 30% to Canada and 10% to Japan, and the remaining 10% to the country of Argentina.Most of the quantitative studies have been studied, with 70%, mainly, whereas the Systematic Review has been used by a 20% by Canada and Spain and the remaining 10% is an observational study also carried out in Spain.Conclusions: It was evidenced in the investigations reviewed that venipuncture to take the blood sample in the newborn is less painful and less traumatic compared to heel puncture;The time being used for the accomplishment three times less in front of the heel puncture.Its application does not increase false positives.Sweetened elements are used for pain reduction.
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 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".