Assessment of the ototoxicity of almond oil in a chinchilla animal model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Almond oil is frequently prescribed as a ceruminolytic, to soften ear wax or relieve ventilation tube occlusion. Ceruminolytics could lead to ototoxicity in the presence of a tympanic perforation. Reports on the safety of almond oil as a ceruminolytic is limited. The present study aimed to assess the effect of ototopic almond oil on hearing. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a chinchilla animal model. METHODS: Bilateral myringotomies were performed in 19 female chinchilla. One randomly selected ear received almond oil, whereas the other ear received saline applied transtympanically. Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) testing was performed prior to application and at 14 and 30 days following application. Postmortem Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images were obtained to assess cochlear hair cell status. RESULTS: At 30 days following application, there was no significant change in ABR thresholds at 16, 20, or 25 kHz. No cochlear hair cell loss was observed with SEM. CONCLUSIONS: In the chinchilla, when a tympanic perforation is present, almond oil does not seem to cause ototoxicity. Further studies are needed to better assess the effect of almond oil on hearing in humans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".