Ototoxicity of aluminum acetate/benzethonium chloride otic solution in the chinchilla animal model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the ototoxic potential of aluminum acetate (0.5%)/benzethonium chloride (0.03%) otic solution in the chinchilla animal model. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, prospective, controlled study was conducted in the chinchilla animal model. METHODS: Fourteen female chinchillas were used. After an incision was made in each tympanic membrane, baseline auditory brainstem response measurements were performed at 16, 20, and 25 kHz. One ear was randomized to receive aluminum acetate (0.5%)/benzethonium chloride (0.03%), whereas the other ear served as the control and received 0.9% NaCl. Solutions were applied transtympanically once a day for 3 consecutive days. Postapplication auditory brainstem response measurements were done at day 7 and day 30. In half of the animals, scanning electron microscopy was done following the last auditory brainstem response measurement. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference was found between the mean threshold shifts in the experimental and control ears at all frequencies on both 7 and 30 days postapplication (P < .02). Increased ossification of the cochleae was seen in experimental ears (n = 12). Scanning electron microscopy study demonstrated outer hair cell damage and/or loss in the experimental ears. No significant morphological changes were detected on scanning electron microscopy obtained from the control ears. CONCLUSIONS: Application of aluminum acetate (0.5%)/benzethonium chloride (0.03%) otic solution causes hearing loss in chinchillas when a tympanic membrane perforation exists. Further studies are needed to test the effect of this otic solution on hearing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".