MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092437017 · doi:10.2310/7070.2005.5008

Effect of Oral Magnesium Supplementation on Cisplatin Ototoxicity

2006· article· en· W2092437017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ayse Asli Sahin, Çağatay Oysu, Hüseyin Baki Yılmaz, Murat Topak, Mehmet Külekçi, İmer Okar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCisplatinOtotoxicityHypomagnesemiaMedicineGuinea pigMagnesiumInternal medicineEndocrinologyAnesthesiaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of Mg supplementation on cisplatin ototoxicity in guinea pigs. METHODS: Twenty guinea pigs were divided into two groups and were fed different Mg-containing diets. Following 6 mg/kg of cisplatin injection, the animals were sacrificed and the extent of cochlear damage was assessed with the scanning electron microscope and compared with the control group. Additionally, intracardiac blood samples were taken to determine the plasma Mg levels of the subjects before and after cisplatin exposure. RESULTS: The outer hair cell damage owing to cisplatin was not statistically different in both groups (p > .05). Following cisplatin injection, the plasma Mg levels of both groups were found to be significantly lower than the plasma Mg levels before exposure, but the resulting values of the Mg-rich fed group was compatible with control group Mg levels. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that a Mg-rich diet can prevent the severe hypomagnesemia that cisplatin causes in guinea pigs, but this measure has not been enough to protect the inner ear against its ototoxic effect.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207