MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383746597 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(23)00084-0

Assessing the potential climate impact of anaesthetic gases

2023· review· en· W4383746597 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mads P. Sulbæk Andersen, Ole John Nielsen, Jodi D. Sherman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSociety for Paediatric Anaesthesia in New Zealand and AustraliaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGreenhouse gasDesfluraneNitrous oxideEnvironmental scienceClimate changeIsofluraneAir quality indexEnvironmental planningMedicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing concern within the health-care community about the role care delivery plays in environmental degradation, sparking research into how to reduce pollution from clinical practice. Inhaled anaesthetics is a particular research area of interest for two reasons. First, several gases are potent greenhouse gases, and waste gas is mostly emitted directly to the environment. Second, there are options to reduce gas waste and substitute medications and procedures with fewer embodied emissions while delivering high-quality care. Performance improvements are contingent on a proper understanding of the emission estimates and climate metrics used to ensure consistent application in guiding mitigation strategies and accounting at various scales. We review the current literature on the environmental impact and the estimation of the potential climate forcing of common inhaled anaesthetic drugs: desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane, methoxyflurane, and nitrous oxide.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations126
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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