MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606532563 · doi:10.1097/jpn.0000000000000248

Nitrous Oxide Utility in Labor and Birth

2017· review· en· W2606532563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNitrous oxideFoleyModality (human–computer interaction)PregnancyObstetricsTreatment modalityAromatherapyAnesthesiaSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of nitrous oxide (N2O) for labor and birth has very recently emerged as a viable modality in the United States, despite a long history of use in Canada and Europe. Usually associated with dental procedures, there are significant differences between dental and parturition utility, efficacy, and staff exposure. In addition to using it for pain relief and anxiolysis, those centers utilizing it have noted it to be multipurpose and useful for such situations as: external cephalic version, manual removal of placenta, intravenous starts, during placement of urinary catheters and intracervical Foley bulbs. Nitrous oxide has proven to be especially helpful for repair of lacerations under local anesthesia and is a multiuse modality that should be available to women in all birth settings. This article explores the history of N2O use, provides a comparison of obstetrical use to use in the dental industry, examines the contraindications to, and implications for usage, and discusses logistical points of consideration for clinicians working with women using N2O for labor and birth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal NursingSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207