Nitrous Oxide Concentration During Cryotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to record room air concentrations of nitrous oxide during sessions of cryotherapy and to compare them with available norms. Complementary objectives were to determine the knowledge of Canadian colposcopists and to evaluate the need for education regarding nitrous oxide toxicities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Air concentrations of nitrous oxide during cryotherapy sessions were measured with an infrared gas analyzer. A survey was sent to colposcopists throughout Canada to evaluate their knowledge of toxicities of nitrous oxide. RESULTS: The mean air concentrations of nitrous oxide measured were 169, 91, 99, and 103 ppm, respectively. Adding a tube to the cryotherapy scavenging outlet to dispose of the gas diminished the concentration to 17 ppm. The survey showed that 74% of the gynecologists surveyed use nitrous oxide as a refrigerant and only 18% know about the toxicities of nitrous oxide. CONCLUSION: Without a device to dispose of nitrous oxide securely during cryotherapy, the air concentration exceeds safe levels. Education of clinicians on the toxicities of nitrous oxide should be a goal in the future.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".