Differences in Ototoxicity across Species.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To illustrate some differences between humans and rodents in the dose-effect relationships for two ototoxic drugs. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled animal study using typical research regimens for gentamicin and cisplatin compared with human data from the clinical literature. METHODS: Auditory brainstem response testing was carried out over months in two groups of animals exposed to typical dose regimens for ototoxic drugs. In the first group, 30 guinea pigs received either 3 or 6 mg/kg of cisplatin on alternate days for 5 days (total dose 15 or 30 mg/kg). In the second group, 24 C57 mice received saline or 19 daily doses of gentamicin 120 mg/kg. The findings in rodents were contrasted with human toxicity in the literature. RESULTS: Cisplatin increased click thresholds (32 +/- 27 dB) in guinea pigs. Doses of 15 mg/kg caused less hearing loss than 30 mg/kg, but the higher dose was associated with greater mortality owing to renal insufficiency. These findings are comparable with expectations of similar doses of cisplatin in humans. In contrast, gentamicin produced less hearing loss in mice, although the dose employed was well above the lethal dose for humans. CONCLUSIONS: Ototoxic doses of cisplatin in guinea pigs are similar to those of humans, but C57 mice appear to be highly resistant to gentamicin-induced hearing loss compared to humans. Animal models of ototoxicity need to be considered carefully in translational research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".