Evaluation of Risk Factors Causing Ototoxicity in Childhood Cancers Located in the Head and Neck Region Treated With Platinum-based Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate risk factors contributing to the development of ototoxicity in children who received platinum-based chemotherapy for malignancies located in the head and neck region. Eighty-four children who received platinum-based chemotherapy were included. Audiologic evaluations were performed before and after each chemotherapy session through pure tone audiometry, distortion product otoacoustic emissions, and auditory brainstem response tests. Ototoxicity was evaluated using Brock, Muenster, and Chang classifications. Factors such as cranial irradiation, cumulative doses of cisplatin, age, sex, cotreatment with aminoglycosides, schedule of platinum, and type of chemotherapeutic agent were analyzed. Using χ2 tests, all risk factors were matched with the 3 ototoxicity classifications, and multivariate analyses were conducted using statistically significant risk factors. In univariate analyses, being between 5 and 12 years of age, cranial irradiation and being treated with both cisplatin and carboplatin were found to be related to ototoxicity in all 3 classifications. Logistic regression modeling analyses with these 3 risk factors showed that being between 5 and 12 years of age and being treated with both cisplatin and carboplatin significantly increased the risk of ototoxicity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".