Potential roles of stem cells in the management of sensorineural hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the management of sensorineural hearing loss, effective therapy for degenerated hair cells, third order neurons, ganglions, dendrites and synaptic areas of the vestibulo-cochleo-cerebral pathway remains an enigma. Transplantation of stem and progenitor cells appears to be an emerging potential solution, and is the focus of this review. AIM: To review recent developments in the management of sensorineural hearing loss in the field of stem cell research. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A systematic review of the English language literature included all experimental and non-experimental studies with a Jadad score of three or more, published between 2000 and 2010 and included in the following databases: Cochrane Library Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders; Medline; Google Scholar; Hinari; and the Online Library of Toronto University. RESULTS: Of the 455 and 29 600 articles identified from Medline and Google Scholar, respectively, 48 met the inclusion criteria. These were independently reviewed and jointly analysed. CONCLUSION: Although there is not yet any evidence from successful human studies, stem cell and 'alternative stem cell' technology seems to represent the future of sensorineural hearing loss management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".