MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176707844 · doi:10.1159/000381288

Quantifying the Ototoxicity of Mitomycin: Before versus after Myringotomy

2015· article· en· W2176707844 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Roskies, Dan Citra, Sam J. Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueORL · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyringotomyMedicineMitomycin COtotoxicityMiddle earAuditory brainstem responseOtoacoustic emissionAnesthesiaSurgeryAudiologyHearing loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Recent research has focused on mitomycin C (MMC) application as a means to circumvent complications that arise when using ventilation tubes during myringotomy. This study has two aims: (1) to synergize the current literature to create a standardized clinical approach for using MMC, and (2) to determine at which point during the myringotomy the application of MMC proves the safest (i.e., before or after incision). METHODS: We measured the auditory brainstem response (ABR) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) in 9 female chinchillas to determine whether applying MMC before or after incision was also the safest. The tests were then repeated on days 3, 10 and 17. RESULTS: The change in the ABR thresholds from baseline was greater in the experimental than in the control group; however, after stratification, the 'after' group experienced a statistically significant change (19.38 ± 8.26) on day 17, whereas the 'before' group did not (2.00 ± 3.26; p = 0.003). No such changes were seen with DPOAE testing. CONCLUSIONS: Mitomycin is less ototoxic to the middle ear when applied before myringotomy is done. We recommend future studies to apply the clinical approach we have designed to standardize its use in selected cases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueORLSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207