Gentamicin Vestibulotoxicity: Further Insights From a Large Clinical Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review insights gained from a 21-year experience with gentamicin-induced vestibulotoxicity including differences in vestibulotoxicity between single daily dosing (SDD) and multiple daily dosing (MDD) regimens. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Patients with gentamicin vestibulotoxicity referred to the Hertz Multidisciplinary Neurotology Clinic between January 1993 and September 2014. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spectrum of vestibular dysfunction measured using videonystagmography, vestibular evoked myogenic potentials, video head impulse testing, and magnetic scleral search coil testing. RESULTS: Of 53 patients with gentamicin-induced vestibulotoxicity, 24 received SDD and 29 received MDD treatment. The most common indications for treatment were sepsis, endocarditis, and osteomyelitis. Angular acceleration receptor function (semicircular canals) was more commonly affected than linear acceleration receptor function (otolithic organ of the saccule; 100% vs. 62%). A significant proportion of patients (53%) developed vestibulotoxicity in the absence of nephrotoxicity and 40% experienced vestibulotoxicity in a delayed fashion up to 10 days posttreatment cessation (mean 3.9 ± 0.7). Therapeutic monitoring did not necessarily prevent delayed vestibulotoxicity. Nephrotoxicity was less common for SDD compared with MDD (60% vs. 35%, p = 0.01). However, the SDD group experienced vestibulotoxicity at a lower cumulative dose (6.3 vs. 7.0 g, p = 0.04) and shorter duration of therapy (20.7 vs 29.4 d, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our study further highlights important insights regarding gentamicin-induced vestibulotoxicity. While SDD is associated with decreased risk for nephrotoxicity compared with MDD, it confers a higher risk for vestibulotoxicity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".