Are intratympanic injections of N-acetylcysteine and methylprednisolone protective against Cisplatin-induced ototoxicity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and to compare the protective effect of intratympanic injections of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) or methylprednisolone to prevent cisplatin-induced ototoxicity, to investigate inner ear protection using an electron microscope and to evaluate the effect of 4% NAC on the middle ear. DESIGN: Experimental study. SETTING: Basic ear research center at Sainte-Justine hospital. METHODS: Ten Hartley guinea pigs were divided into two groups, according to the product used intratympanically (4% NAC or 62.5 mg/mL methylprednisolone) in one ear. The other ear was left as control. Cisplatin was administered intraperitoneally (3 mg/kg), once a week for 5 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Auditory evoked brainstem responses were used to test hearing. The inner ear was screened using an electron microscope. RESULTS: Significant threshold shift was seen on all tested frequencies of both groups. This difference is clinically and statistically significant in the methylprednisolone group. The NAC-treated group had a lower threshold shift than the methylprednisolone group in both ears. Electron microscope studies showed in all untreated-NAC ears severe lesion of the inner and outer hair cells with complete degeneration of steriocilia, whereas in NAC-treated ears we noted a nuclear and cytoplasmic membrane preservation with some preservation of steriocila. Also, 4% intratympanic NAC produces an external auditory canal and middle ear inflammatory reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Intratympanic injections of methylprednisolone failed to demonstrate efficacy in protecting cisplatin ototoxicity whereas 4% NAC showed a partial protection. The safety of intratympanic injections should be investigated in further studies, as possible systemic shift of the locally administered treatment is suspected.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".