Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Interest in the use of alternative therapies to reduce anxiety in patients undergoing medical interventions is increasing. We sought to assess the effectiveness of aromatherapy involving essential oils in reducing preoperative anxiety in women undergoing abortions. SETTING: An urban, free-standing abortion clinic in Vancouver, BC. PATIENTS: 66 women waiting for surgical abortions. DESIGN: A double blind, randomized trial. INTERVENTION: Ten minutes spent sniffing a numbered container with either a mixture of the essential oils vetivert, bergamot, and geranium (treatment arm) or a hair conditioner (placebo). OUTCOME MEASURES: Anxiety was measured before and after the intervention by using a verbal anxiety scale from 0 to 10. RESULTS: The anxiety score was reduced by 1.0 point (5.0 to 4.0) in the aromatherapy group and by 1.1 points (6.1 to 5.0) in the placebo group (P = 0.71). The 95% CI on the 0.1 greater decrease in anxiety for the placebo group extends from 0.55 less (favors aromatherapy) to 0.75 greater (favors placebo). CONCLUSION: Aromatherapy involving essential oils is no more effective than having patients sniff other pleasant odors in reducing preprocedure anxiety.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".