Improved Residual Hearing Preservation Using Peri-Operative Minocycline during Cochlear Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether peri-operative minocycline improves preservation of residual hearing in adult patients undergoing cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective age, gender matched study design. SETTING: Tertiary/quaternary referral centre. PATIENTS: Nine patients undergoing cochlear implantation who received minocycline peri-operatively and a historical control group of nine matched patients who did not receive minocycline. INTERVENTION(S): Minocycline 200mg orally pre-operatively and 100mg daily post-operatively for ten days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Change in residual hearing thresholds at 250 and 500 Hz. RESULTS: The average loss of residual hearing at 250 Hz post-cochlear implant for those who had not received minocycline was 18.9 dB (SD 12.2) compared to 16.7 dB (SD 15.0) for those who had received peri-operative minocycline (p-value 0.77). The average loss of residual hearing at 500 Hz post-cochlear implant for those who had not received minocycline was 24.4 dB (SD 15.9) compared to 19.4 dB (SD 14.3) for those who had received minocycline (p-value 0.48). Two patients who did not receive minocycline lost all residual hearing at both 250 Hz and 500 Hz post-implantation and only one patient who had received minocycline lost all residual hearing at 500 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: The neuroprotective effect of minocycline may help to preserve residual hearing post-cochlear implant. Further studies are warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".