Safety of transtympanic application of probiotics in a chinchilla animal model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic suppurative otitis media can be recalcitrant and difficult to treat, particularly with the increasing occurrence of antibiotic resistance. Lactobacillus plantarum is a probiotic that has been shown to decrease S. aureus and P. aeruginosa growth in wounds, making it a good candidate for the treatment of chronic suppurative otitis media. However, before it can be applied in the ear, its ototoxicity potential must be evaluated. Methods A prospective controlled trial was conducted in a chinchilla animal model at the Animal care research facilities of the Montreal Children's Hospital Research Institute to determine whether Lactobacillus plantarum is ototoxic when applied transtympanically. Ten chinchillas each had one ear randomly assigned to receive 109 CFU/mL of Lactobacillus plantarum solution, while the contralateral ear received saline. Auditory brainstem responses were measured bilaterally at 8, 20, 25 kHz before, at 7–10 days after application, and at 28 days after application of probiotic or saline. Facial nerve and vestibular function were assessed clinically. Results There were no statistically significant differences in hearing thresholds between control and experimental ears at 28 days after application. A difference of 11 dB was noted in the 25 kHz range at day 7–10, but resolved by day 28. No animals receiving probiotics developed vestibular nerve dysfunction. There was no histologic evidence of auditory hair cell damaged evidenced by scanning electron microscopy. Conclusion Our study suggests that a single application of Lactobacillus plantarum at 109 CFU/mL does not cause ototoxicity in a chinchilla animal model. These preliminary safety evaluations and the pathogen inhibitory effects of L. plantarum demonstrated by previous studies present this probiotic as a candidate of interest for further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".