MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403695184 · doi:10.1016/j.jvsvi.2024.100151

The carbon footprint of the vascular surgery operating room

2024· article· en· W4403695184 on OpenAlexafffund
Ningzhi Gu, Maja Grubisic, J. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJVS-Vascular Insights · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsLangara CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDoctors of BC
KeywordsCarbon footprintFootprintEnvironmental scienceMedicineGeographyGeologyGreenhouse gasArchaeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Climate change is the single greatest threat to global human health, contributing to changes in disease patterns, water and food insecurity, vulnerability in shelter and human settlements, climatic volatility, and population growth and migration.Health care generates between 8% and 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions.Surgical care accounts for a significant proportion owing to equipment and drug use, sterility requirements, and life support systems.There are currently minimal data describing this carbon consumption.The purpose of this study was to determine the carbon use of common vascular interventions and to identify variables associated with increased carbon use. Methods:We conducted an observational study of all elective and urgent vascular surgery procedures performed at our institution over a 2-month period in 2023.All waste generated was weighed and cataloged per hospital waste practices.Additional characteristics of the procedures were also collected.Carbon use was determined by applying DEFRA greenhouse gas life-cycle conversion factors to the mean waste produced.These factors take into account greenhouse gas emissions generated in the initial production and eventual disposal.Variables associated with increased carbon production were evaluated by linear regression models with log-transformed outcomes.Results: Fifty-nine procedures were included.Complex endovascular aortic procedures were the most carbon intensive (69.35 kg CO 2 ), equivalent to driving a medium-sized vehicle 369 km.Dialysis access procedures (11.5 kg CO 2 ) and minor amputations (10.6 kg CO 2 ) were the least carbon intensive.Open surgical bypasses (28.4 kg CO 2 ) and cerebrovascular procedures (20.3 kg CO 2 ) produced a moderate amount of carbon.Endovascular interventions were 50% more carbon intensive than open interventions (95% confidence interval, 28%-77%; P < .01).Aortic interventions were 63% more carbon intensive than nonaortic interventions (95% confidence interval, 28%-109%; P < .01).In both models, there was nearly a one-half percent increase in carbon generated for each minute of additional operating time (P < .01).Blood loss was not consistently associated with carbon use.Conclusions: Climate change is a major threat to human health.The environmental impact of day-to-day surgery is rarely considered but clearly significant.Larger procedures are associated with increased carbon use, particularly if they are endovascular or aortic.The duration of the case is also associated with increased use.Further work should be done to identify additional variables and opportunities for carbon reduction.(

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJVS-Vascular InsightsSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207