MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774156456 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(17)30162-6

The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems

2017· article· en· W2774156456 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea J. MacNeill, Robert Lillywhite, Carl J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsCarbon footprintGreenhouse gasOperating theatresEnvironmental scienceUnit (ring theory)MedicineOperations managementAgricultural scienceMedical emergencyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Climate change is a major global public health priority. The delivery of health-care services generates considerable greenhouse gas emissions. Operating theatres are a resource-intensive subsector of health care, with high energy demands, consumable throughput, and waste volumes. The environmental impacts of these activities are generally accepted as necessary for the provision of quality care, but have not been examined in detail. In this study, we estimate the carbon footprint of operating theatres in hospitals in three health systems. Methods Surgical suites at three academic quaternary-care hospitals were studied over a 1-year period in Canada (Vancouver General Hospital, VGH), the USA (University of Minnesota Medical Center, UMMC), and the UK (John Radcliffe Hospital, JRH). Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using primary activity data and applicable emissions factors, and reported according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Findings Site greenhouse gas evaluations were done between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2011. The surgical suites studied were found to have annual carbon footprints of 5 187 936 kg of CO 2 equivalents (CO 2 e) at JRH, 4 181 864 kg of CO 2 e at UMMC, and 3 218 907 kg of CO 2 e at VGH. On a per unit area basis, JRH had the lowest carbon intensity at 1702 kg CO 2 e/m 2 , compared with 1951 kg CO 2 e/m 2 at VGH and 2284 kg CO 2 e/m 2 at UMMC. Based on case volumes at all three sites, VGH had the lowest carbon intensity per operation at 146 kg CO 2 e per case compared with 173 kg CO 2 e per case at JRH and 232 kg CO 2 e per case at UMMC. Anaesthetic gases and energy consumption were the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Preferential use of desflurane resulted in a ten-fold difference in anaesthetic gas emissions between hospitals. Theatres were found to be three to six times more energy-intense than the hospital as a whole, primarily due to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning requirements. Overall, the carbon footprint of surgery in the three countries studied is estimated to be 9·7 million tonnes of CO 2 e per year. Interpretation Operating theatres are an appreciable source of greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions reduction strategies including avoidance of desflurane and occupancy-based ventilation have the potential to lessen the climate impact of surgical services without compromising patient safety. Funding None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations774
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Planetary HealthSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207