Comparison of Cochlear Cell Death Caused by Cisplatin, Alone and in Combination with Furosemide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishment of appropriate animal models is an important step in exploring the mechanisms of drug-induced ototoxicity. In the present study, using guinea pigs we compared cochlear lesions induced by cisplatin administered in two regimens: consecutive application alone and in combination with furosemide. The effects of furosemide alone were also evaluated; it was found to cause temporary hearing loss and reversible damage to the stria vascularis. Consecutive application of cisplatin alone appeared to be disadvantageous because it resulted in progressive body weight loss and higher mortality compared to the combined regimen, which used a smaller cisplatin dose. The combined regimen resulted in comparable hearing loss and hair cell loss but a markedly lower mortality. However, their coadministration failed to cause similar damage to spiral ganglion neurons (SGN), as seen in animals that received cisplatin alone. This difference suggests that the combined regimen did not mimic the damage to cochlear neuronal innervation caused by the clinical application of cisplatin. The difference also suggests that the SGN lesion is not caused by cisplatin entering the cochlea via the stria vascularis.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".