Exposure to anesthetic gases and congenital anomalies in offspring of female registered nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of offspring of mothers exposed to anesthetic gases have shown associations with congenital anomalies reported by the mothers, but rarely in studies with objectively ascertained outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine associations between registry-ascertained congenital anomalies in offspring and anesthetic gas exposure of mothers employed as nurses. METHODS: A cohort of registered nurses in British Columbia, Canada, was linked to records of births and congenital anomalies from 1990 to 2000. Exposures were assessed via a survey of anesthetic gas use in all hospitals in the province and records of nurses' jobs, departments, and hospitals. RESULTS: Departments most frequently reporting anesthetic gas use were operating rooms, post-anesthetic recovery rooms, and maternity units. In the cohort of 15,317 live-borne children of 9,433 mothers, 1,079 had congenital anomalies. Anomalies were associated with ever and probable maternal exposure to halogenated gases (ORs: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.04-2.13; and 2.61, 95% CI: 1.31-5.18, respectively) and to nitrous oxide (ORs: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.05-1.94; and 1.82, 95% CI: 1.11-2.99). Anomalies most frequently associated with exposure were those of the heart (OR, halogenated gases: 2.31, 95% CI: 1.07-4.97) and integument (OR, halogenated gases: 3.56, 95% CI: 1.53-8.32; OR, nitrous oxide: 3.02, 95% CI: 1.37-6.64). Gases most frequently associated with anomalies were halothane (predominantly used early in the study period), isoflurane, and sevoflurane (predominantly used later in the period). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, where both exposures and outcomes were assessed objectively, certain congenital anomalies were associated with estimated anesthetic gas exposure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".