MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919471085 · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aao0935

Delivery of therapeutics to the inner ear: The challenge of the blood-labyrinth barrier

2019· review· en· W2919471085 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Translational Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsInner earCochleaMedicineVestibular systemBlood–brain barrierDrug deliveryAnatomyAudiologyCentral nervous systemChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permanent hearing loss affects more than 5% of the world's population, yet there are no nondevice therapies that can protect or restore hearing. Delivery of therapeutics to the cochlea and vestibular system of the inner ear is complicated by their inaccessible location. Drug delivery to the inner ear via the vasculature is an attractive noninvasive strategy, yet the blood-labyrinth barrier at the luminal surface of inner ear capillaries restricts entry of most blood-borne compounds into inner ear tissues. Here, we compare the blood-labyrinth barrier to the blood-brain barrier, discuss invasive intratympanic and intracochlear drug delivery methods, and evaluate noninvasive strategies for drug delivery to the inner ear.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.240 · 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