Ototoxicity of Triethanolamine Polypeptide (Cerumenex) in the Chinchilla
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The use of earwax softeners and cerumenolytics to unblock the external auditory canal is increasing. Although reports on their effectiveness are available, data about their effect on hearing are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of ototopic triethanolamine polypeptide oleate condensate 10% (Cerumenex) on hearing. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a chinchilla animal model. METHODS: Tympanostomy tubes were inserted in five chinchillas, and hearing was assessed with distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) between 1 and 9 kHz prior to application and at days 1, 4, 30, and 100 postototopic application of Cerumenex. One ear received Cerumenex; the other ear served as control. Postmortem scanning electron microscopy was performed to assess the cochlear hair cells. RESULTS: A reduction in the mean DPOAE signal was shown in the ears treated with Cerumenex from the first day after treatment and throughout the study. Almost all tested frequencies were affected. Swelling, crusting, and fluid were observed in four of the five experimental ears. One animal also developed facial paralysis in the experimental side. Electron microscopy showed damage of the outer and inner hair cells in the Cerumenex-treated ears. CONCLUSIONS: In the chinchilla, when a tympanic perforation is present, Cerumenex causes a reduction in DPOAE signal and damage to the cochlear hair cells. Caution should be observed when prescribing this agent if the status of the tympanic membrane is unknown. Furthermore, its use without medical prescription should be discouraged because of the risk of ototoxicity and severe inflammatory reaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".