Hydrogen peroxide ototoxicity in unblocking ventilation tubes: A chinchilla pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Some clinicians use hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to clear the lumen of ventilation tubes that become blocked postoperatively. The ototoxicity associated with H2O2 has been controversial. STUDY DESIGN: We designed an experiment to test if H2O2 damages the cochlear hair cells using a Chinchilla laniger animal model. METHODS: Nine chinchillas (18 ears) were included in this study. Each animal was used as its own control. Following the insertion of ventilation tubes in both ears and baseline recordings of the auditory brain stem responses (ABR), we instilled 2 ml of 3 percent H2O2 into their right external auditory canals (experimental ears). H2O2 was left in the external auditory canal for a total of 5 minutes and then was drained. We instilled a normal saline control solution in their left ears (control ears) in a similar fashion. ABR recordings were performed 1 day after the last instillation of H2O2 and 5 days later. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the ABR thresholds of the experimental and control ears. CONCLUSION: H2O2 did not appear to cause ototoxicity in chinchilla ears with tympanostomy tubes exposed to H2O2 instillation using a standard clinical protocol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".