MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063592525 · doi:10.1121/1.3453764

Synchronous auditory nerve activity in the carboplatin-chinchilla model of auditory neuropathy

2010· review· en· W2063592525 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher D. Cowper-Smith, Rachel N. Dingle, Yin Shi Guo, Robert Burkard, Dennis P. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsInferior colliculusAuditory neuropathyChinchillaAuditory brainstem responseNeuroscienceBrainstemCarboplatinNeural activityNeurophysiologyHair cellAudiologyBiologyMedicineAnatomyHearing lossCochleaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two hallmark features of auditory neuropathy (AN) are normal outer hair cell function in the presence of an absent/abnormal auditory brainstem response (ABR). Studies of human AN patients are unable to determine whether disruption of the ABR is the result of a reduction of neural input, a loss of auditory nerve fiber (ANF) synchrony, or both. Neurophysiological data from the carboplatin model of AN reveal intact neural synchrony in the auditory nerve and inferior colliculus, despite significant reductions in neural input. These data suggest that (1), intact neural synchrony is available to support an ABR following carboplatin treatment and, (2), impaired spike timing intrinsic to neurons is required for the disruption of the ABR observed in human AN.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207