Study of Methylene Blue Ototoxicity in the Guinea Pig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methylene blue is widely used in the medical field, especially as a blue dye for staining. It is also used as a photosensitizing agent in antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, which once photoactivated is effective for the eradication of several multi-resistant bacteria. The objective of this study was to investigate the ototoxic potential of methylene blue and precise its use in otology. METHODS: It was a prospective animal study performed on guinea pigs in our tertiary medical center. We divided the animals into two groups: an experimental group and a control group, who underwent a series of three intratympanic (IT) injections. In the control group (n = 10), they received injections of gentamicin in one ear (positive control) and normal saline in the contralateral ear (negative control). The experimental group (n = 10) received injections of methylene blue in one ear, compared to injections of normal saline in the contralateral ear. We conducted auditory-evoked brainstem response (ABR) before and 1 week after the injection series. Once this is completed, the cochlea was dissected and caspase-3 was analyzed by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: The mean difference of hearing loss in the methylene blue group compared to normal saline was 1.50 dB, and it was not shown to be statistically significant (P = 0.688). For the positive control group, which received IT injections of gentamicin, the mean threshold of hearing loss difference for all the frequencies combined was 66.25 dB (P < 0.001). Furthermore, uptake of caspase-3 by immunohistochemistry (apoptotic marker) was negative in our group, which received injections of methylene blue. CONCLUSION: In light of our results, IT injections of methylene blue did not demonstrate an ototoxic potential. We recommend further studies to precise its use in the otologic field.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".