Something Stinks! Finding Ways to Manage Noxious Odours in the Operating Room and Other Clinical Settings A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The hospital can be saturated with noxious smells. Anecdotally, medical staff apply products to surgical masks to lessen the impact of these smells. This study aimed to determine the odour-masking ability of 4 inexpensive and convenient products. Methods: A randomized, single-blinded crossover study was conducted in Vancouver, Canada. Participants, 19 to 30 years old, were invited to participate. Participants with active allergies, upper respiratory tract infection, alteration to sense of smell, or failure of olfactory screen were excluded from the study. An experimental odour was used in lieu of a noxious surgical odour. After smelling the experimental odour without barriers, participants were re-exposed to the odour using 5 surgical masks in randomized order. Each mask was lined with a test product (cherry lip balm, tincture of benzoin, Mastisol, mint toothpaste, and control [plain mask]). Participants rated the effectiveness of products at masking the experimental odour from 0 to 100 (0 = completely ineffective, 100 = completely effective). Participants also rated the pleasantness of the products, recorded if the products made them feel unwell, and identified their preferred product overall. Results: Eighty participants were included in the study (33 male, 47 female), averaging 24.2 years of age. Mean odour-masking effectiveness for cherry lip balm was 66.5 (±24.6), tincture of benzoin: 62.6 (±25.0), Mastisol: 61.3 (±23.9), mint toothpaste: 57.5 (±27.4), and control: 21.9 (±21.8). All products performed better than the control ( P < .001), but there was no significant difference in performance between products. Cherry lip balm was the most preferred odour-masking product (29 participants), followed by mint toothpaste (22), Mastisol (14), tincture of benzoin (10), and control (5). Conclusions: All tested products demonstrated equivalent odour-masking abilities. If health care professionals choose to use an odour-masking product, they should consider their own olfactory preferences.
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 | 0.006 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".