Does intracochlear brain-derived nerve growth factor improve auditory brainstem click thresholds in sensorineural hearing loss?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intracochlear administration of brain-derived nerve growth factor (BDNF) is associated with lower auditory brainstem response (ABR) click thresholds after cisplatin-induced sensorineural hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Animal research study. METHODS: Fifteen normal hearing guinea pigs were studied. In 11 animals, hearing loss was created using cisplatin. One month later, bilateral cochleostomies were then performed. In one ear, BDNF was injected, and in the other, an equivalent volume of saline was injected prior to plugging with fat. In four animals, no cisplatin or BDNF was given, but the cochleostomies were performed bilaterally as surgical controls. ABR testing was then carried out for two subsequent months using clicks to determine thresholds. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant changes in ABR click thresholds between BDNF-treated versus BDNF-untreated ears. The thresholds for the control group that underwent cochleostomy only were actually worse than those for either of the groups that received cisplatin, and the ears that received BDNF had better hearing than either saline or surgical controls, but the results were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Our data do not support the use of intracochlear BDNF for severe hearing loss correction in guinea pigs as used in this protocol.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".