Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To determine if the addition of an inhaled equimolar mixture of nitrous oxide (N2O) and oxygen (EMONO) would produce superior pain relief to standard pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures during eye examination screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in premature infants. Study design A randomised, double-blind controlled trial was conducted. Setting Royal Victoria Hospital, a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit in Montreal, Canada. Patients Stable spontaneously breathing premature infants with birth weights less than 1500 g or gestation of 30 weeks and less. Intervention During the eye examination, all infants were swaddled, received oral sucrose and topical anaesthetics. Control group infants received a mixture of 50 % oxygen and 50 % nitrogen (n=18) administered by nasal cannula, while the intervention group received EMONO (50 % oxygen and 50 % N2O). Main outcome measures Pain was assessed by the premature infant pain profi le (PIPP). Results The mean PIPP score at speculum insertion in the control group (8.4, 95 % CI 7.6 to 9.3) was comparable with the EMONO group (8.5, 95 % CI 7.3 to 9.8) with a p value of 0.94. There were no signifi cant differences in heart rate or saturation between the two groups. EMONO inhalation was tolerated without any measured side effects. Conclusion EMONO does not produce any additional pain relief over currently used measures during ROP screening eye examinations. Systematically combining pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities appears to be the best option until newer treatments are proven effective. Clinical trials registration number NCT00623220
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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".