Cisplatin otoprotection using transtympanic L‐N‐acetylcysteine: A pilot randomized study in head and neck cancer patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of transtympanic L-N-Acetylcysteine (L-NAC) administration in patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy for head and neck cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized nonblinded open-label clinical trial. METHODS: Transtympanic 2% L-NAC was administered to one randomly selected ear with the other ear as control in each patient. Primary outcome parameter was the difference in the loss of pure tone averages (PTA) at 2, 4, and 8 kHz between the L-NAC and control ear at 1 to 2 months following chemotherapy. RESULTS: Eleven patients completed the study, with two patients demonstrating significantly better hearing in the L-NAC treated ear (18.2%). However, for the overall group, the difference in hearing preservation did not reach significance. Two percent L-NAC administration was well tolerated in this patient population. There were no adverse effects associated with L-NAC. CONCLUSION: Although the study did not demonstrate a significant benefit overall, transtympanic L-NAC was associated with significantly better hearing in two patients. Better delivery methods may improve the efficacy of this treatment. L-NAC remains a promising drug in preventing cisplatin-induced ototoxicity.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it