End points for cisplatin ototoxicity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss owing to ototoxicity in humans is usually presumed to be irreversible and stable. Most articles in the literature study the effects of ototoxic agents such as cisplatin only over a few days or weeks. This study focused on the recovery of hearing over several months in mice. The same treatment was applied to guinea pigs to determine whether there were significant differences in response between the two species. METHODS: Thirty-two mice and 37 guinea pigs were randomized to receive either saline or cisplatin (15 mg/kg). After this exposure, we performed auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing on the mice over 8 months and on the guinea pigs for 1 month. RESULTS: Hearing loss owing to cisplatin shows significant variability between and within species. In mice, hearing loss is maximal at about 17 dB during the third month after cisplatin administration but actually improves to the level attributable to presbyacusis. Guinea pigs, however, experience greater, approximately 25 dB hearing loss within a month of administration of the same dose of cisplatin, tested with the same protocol. CONCLUSION: In general, ototoxicity end points should be assessed more than 1 month after exposure for animals. Our observation that hearing loss is incomplete before 1 month in mice opens the possibility of studies for preventive treatment during that time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".