Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Olive oil is often used by patients to soften ear wax or to relieve ear canal obstruction. It is also sold in drugstores as a cerumenolytic. To date, no study has assessed the safety of ototopical olive oil on hearing in the presence of tympanic membrane perforation. The present study aimed to assess the safety of ototopic olive oil on hearing in the presence of tympanic membrane perforation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a chinchilla animal model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven chinchillas underwent bilateral myringotomy. In each animal, one ear was randomly assigned to receive olive oil (experimental ear), while the contralateral control ear received normal saline. Auditory brain response (ABR) test was performed at baseline and then 7, 14, and 30 days following the application. RESULTS: At 30 days follow-up, there was no significant change in auditory brain response thresholds at 8, 16, 20, or 25 kHz. Scanning electron microscope imaging showed no damage to the hair cells. CONCLUSION: Olive oil does not seem to cause hearing loss in chinchillas with perforated tympanic membranes. Future clinical studies are required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".