A Feasibility Study of Lavender Aromatherapy in an Awake Craniotomy Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Integrative medicine interventions are needed for awake craniotomies, as many patients experience anxiety. Lavender aromatherapy significantly reduces anxiety or pain in a variety of surgical procedures. This feasibility study used lavender aromatherapy during awake craniotomies to determine the number of patients who would consent and complete the study, the technicality of lavender aromatherapy use, and acceptance by operating room (OR) staff. METHODS: We approached 40 consecutive patients (≥18 years old). Exclusion criteria were pulmonary issues or sensitivity to lavender. Outcome measures in consented patients were enrollment and completion rates, anxiety and pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale for Anxiety (VAS-A) and Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS-P), and satisfaction with pain control using the Patient Opinion of Pain Management (POPM) survey. RESULTS: Of the 40 patients approached, 4 declined participation or had their surgery cancelled. Of the remaining 36, 4 required increased sedation during surgery and 1 was unable to detect lavender. Thus, 31 patients (77.5%) completed the study. VAS-A and VAS-P scores trended lower after lavender inhalation, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. There was a slight increase in VAS-P score at the OR1 time point. Expectancy for reduction in both anxiety and pain were not significantly different. Improvement in anxiety also was not different, while improvement in pain trended lower (P=0.025). POPM results indicated the majority of patients were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with pain management. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated 77.5% completion and the ability to integrate lavender aromatherapy into the OR. Thus, we plan to conduct a randomized clinical trial to assess efficacy of lavender aromatherapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".