Ototoxic effects of single-dose versus 19-day daily-dose gentamicin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gentamicin is one of the most extensively studied aminoglycoside antibiotics. The dogma of gentamicin ototoxicity theorizes that (1) the toxic effects of the drug are cumulative and dose dependent, despite clinical observations of ototoxicity after a single dose, and (2) gentamicin's ototoxic effects are irreversible, although clinicians have observed improvement in hearing over time. The objective of this study was to evaluate this basic dogma by examining the ototoxic differences between single-dose and 19-day daily dosing of gentamicin over a 60-day period. METHODS: Thirty-six C57 mice were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: (1) 19-day daily normal saline intraperitoneal injections (control; n = 10), (2) single-dose intraperitoneal 120 mg/kg gentamicin (n = 12), and (3) 19-day daily intraperitoneal 120 mg/kg gentamicin (n = 14). Pure-tone testing using auditory brainstem response was performed at frequencies of 6, 8, 12, 20, and 30 kHz. Hearing threshold was determined at each frequency by presenting stimuli from 90 dB to 5 dB using 10 dB decrements. Pure-tone testing was performed at days 1, 35, and 60 +/- 2 days. RESULTS: The results showed that hearing (1) improved between days 35 and 60 (p = .023) and (2) was not significantly different between a single dose versus 19 daily doses of gentamicin (p = .285). CONCLUSION: This study concurs with clinical observations that a single large dose of gentamicin may have ototoxic effects similar to those of multiple doses of gentamicin and that, over time, there is the potential for hearing recovery from gentamicin 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".