Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27216818›Full record

ArticleBiomedical engineering online2016

A contrastive analysis of laser heating between the human and guinea pig cochlea by numerical simulations.

Kaiyin Zhang, Yulong Zhang, Ji Li, Qiuling Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaiyin ZhangSchool of Physics and Electronics, Fuyang Normal College, Fuyang, 236037, Anhui, China.
Yulong ZhangSchool of Mathematic and Physics, Jiangsu University of Science and Technology, Zhenjiang, 212003, Jiangsu, China.
Ji LiSchool of Physics and Electronics, Fuyang Normal College, Fuyang, 236037, Anhui, China.
Qiuling WangSchool of Physics and Electronics, Fuyang Normal College, Fuyang, 236037, Anhui, China. qiulingwangql@163.com.
Fuyang Normal University · CNJiangsu University of Science and Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe photo-thermal effect has been hypothesised to be one of the most possible biophysical mechanisms for laser-cochlea stimulation. However, there is a lack of studies to date for direct assessing laser heating in humans due to the large body of evidence required to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Instead, the majority focus on animals like the guinea pig, from which a number of valuable results have been gained. However, in light of the increasing need to improve laser safety, it has became necessary to find out whether studies on animals can shed light on safe laser parameters in the human cochlea. Hence, we conducted this contrastive analysis of laser heating between the human and guinea pig cochlea with the aim of assisting further investigations in this field.

methodsIn this work, a 3D symmetrical model was adopted to simplify the spiraled cochlea. With attention focused on the effect of heat conduction, the time-dependent heat equation was solved using finite element method with the COMSOL Script. In the simulations, cochleae with different sizes and various boundary thermal conditions were utilized.

resultsLaser heating in both cochleae has a similar trend. In the first stage, or at the beginning of the laser heating, both cochleae increased their temperatures rapidly. In the second stage in which the laser heating reached a quasi-steady stage, the peak temperatures began to rise slowly as more laser pulses were applied. However, three differences of the laser heating were observed. The first is regarding the temperature rise. The results show that laser heating in guinea pig is higher than that in human under the same laser parameters. The second difference is the fluctuation of temperature rise at the center of the modiolus. There is a larger fluctuation of temperature rise in the guinea pig cochlea, compared with that in the human cochlea. The third one is the time for reaching a steady thermal state. The results show that the guinea pig cochlea takes longer time to reach a steady thermal state than the human cochlea. Those differences are mainly attributed to the distinctive thermal boundaries and the various sizes of the two cochleae.

conclusionsThis study finds that the laser heating in the guinea pig cochlea is higher than that in the human cochlea under the condition of the same laser parameters. However, laser stimulation still displays a high spatial selectivity in both cochleae despite the effects of heat conduction. The results indicate that experimental studies on the guinea pig could appropriately be an alternative model for the sake of laser safety.

Indexed as

Hot TemperatureLasersModels, BiologicalAnimalsCochleaFinite Element AnalysisGuinea PigsHumansSafetySpecies SpecificityCochleaGuinea pigHumanLaser safetyLaser stimulation

Identifiers

PMID27216818
PMCPMC4877982
OpenAlexW2406638917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.