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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".