Can floseal™ be applied safely during otologic surgery? Assessment of ototoxicity in a chinchilla animal model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In otologic surgery good visualization is paramount, and patients with bleeding diatheses or who need to be anti-coagulated can present a significant challenge. Here, we determine whether Floseal™, a hemostatic matrix, is ototoxic in a validated animal model. METHODS: Nine chinchillas housed in the animal care facilities of the Montreal Children's Hospital Research Institute were used for the study. After a myringotomy incision was made in each tympanic membrane, baseline auditory brainstem response measurements were performed at 8, 20, and 25 kHz. In each animal one ear was randomized to receive Floseal™ to the middle ear cavity, whereas the other ear served as the control and received 0.9% sodium chloride. Outcome measures included early (day 7) and late (day 30) auditory brainstem response, clinical evidence of facial nerve or vestibular disturbance and histological evidence of ototoxity. RESULTS: There was no significant hearing threshold shift on auditory brainstem response across all tested frequencies for both experimental and control ear. No animals receiving Floseal™ developed facial or vestibular nerve dysfunction and there was no histological evidence of ototoxicity. CONCLUSION: Based on the preliminary ototoxicity assessment on nine chinchillas, transtympanic Floseal™ does not appear to be ototoxic. More studies are warranted to assess the safety and applicability of the product in humans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".