The effect of fractionated radiotherapy in sensorineural hearing loss: An animal model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of fractionated radiotherapy on sensorineural hearing loss using an animal model. STUDY DESIGN: In vivo animal study. METHODS: Ears of 25 guinea pigs were divided into three groups: control, irradiated with a total of 48 gray (Gy), and 71 Gy. Unilateral exposure of 48 Gy and 71 Gy fractionated irradiation was given for a 4-week period. Auditory brainstem response and distortion products otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) were tested prior to irradiation and 1, 6, 10, and 16 weeks after completion of radiotherapy to assess the hearing threshold shift postradiotherapy over time. RESULTS: No significant differences in hearing thresholds between the low dose radiation (48 Gy) and the control group (no radiation) underlined that 48 Gy caused no hearing deficits (P = 0.37). The higher dose (71 Gy) showed progressive deterioration of the hearing function over time. Three-way ANOVA interactions revealed significant group-time effects (F= 9.261; P < 0.0001). DPOAE analysis demonstrated hearing loss at 71 Gy without progression or recovery at all time points, predominantly in the higher frequencies tested. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that in the presence of sensorineural hearing loss due to high- dose fractionated radiotherapy, there is an initial sensorial component; however, the neural component is responsible for its progressivity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".