Should nitrous oxide ever be used in oncology patients receiving methotrexate therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nitrous oxide (N2O) is frequently used for short anesthesia/analgesia in children undergoing painful or repetitive procedures. Children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) require repeated lumbar punctures with direct instillation of intrathecal chemotherapy, usually the anti‐folate agent methotrexate, during their treatment. These procedures are frequently performed under anesthesia. Concerns have been intermittently raised about a drug interaction between methotrexate and N2O that may potentiate the undesirable side effects of methotrexate, including neurotoxicity. However, the clinical evidence consists mainly of isolated case reports leading to a lack of consensus among pediatric anesthetists about the relative risk benefits of using N2O in children with ALL. In this article, we review the biochemical basis and scientific observations that suggest a significant interaction between N2O and methotrexate due to their dual inhibition of the key enzyme methionine synthase. The possible role of this interaction in potentiating neurotoxicity in children with cancer is discussed, and arguments and counterarguments about the clinical significance of this largely theoretical relationship are explored. Following comprehensive review of all the available data, we make the case for the circumstantial evidence being sufficiently compelling to prompt a review of practice by pediatric anesthetists and call for a precautionary approach by avoiding the use of N2O in children receiving concurrent methotrexate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".