Brain‐derived nerve growth factor in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: A possible medical treatment for sensorineural hearing loss using brain-derived nerve growth factor (BDNF) was explored. The hypothesis is that direct intracochlear application of BDNF will result in improved hearing. STUDY DESIGN: Animal research study. METHODS: Significant hearing loss was created using cisplatin in 11 guinea pigs. One month later, bilateral cochleostomies were performed placing 0.05 microg of BDNF in one cochlea of each animal prior to plugging with connective tissue. The other cochlea served as a control. Auditory brain-stem response (ABR) testing was then carried out for three months at 6,000, 8,000, 12,000, and 24,000 Hz. RESULTS: ABR thresholds were better in the treated ear for all frequencies. Threshold differences were statistically significantly better two months after treatment (general linear model, repeated measures P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: Intracochlear application of BDNF may prevent hearing loss.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".