Otologic safety of manuka honey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the possible ototoxic effects of a 50% concentration of manuka honey in a chinchilla animal model. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, controlled animal study. SETTING: The Research Institute of the Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Centre. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eight animals had myringotomy incisions in both ears. One ear was randomly assigned to receive the 50% manuka honey solution. The contralateral ear received saline and served as the control ear. OUTCOME MEASURES: Auditory brainstem evoked responses (ABRs) were measured bilaterally for a wide range of frequencies (between 8 and 25 kHz) before and 2 weeks after transtympanic manuka honey and saline application. The animals were sacrificed, and all cochleae were dissected out and processed for light and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: The measured ABR thresholds after the application of 50% concentration of manuka honey revealed severe ototoxicity in all honey-exposed ears. This was accompanied by gross physical changes and histologic evidence of hair cell toxicity on SEM and light microscopy. The control ears remained unchanged during the period of the experiment. CONCLUSION: Although 50% concentration of manuka honey is the proven concentration to have bactericidal properties against biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, this concentration appeared to have caused severe or intense inflammatory changes that produced facial paralysis, vestibulotoxicity, and hearing loss.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".