ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Comparison of associations suggests mainly distinct pools of genetic risk factors contribute to cisplatin-induced hearing loss and hearing difficulty in the general population.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cisplatin is an effective chemotherapeutic agent for treating many cancers. However, a major complication associated with cisplatin treatment is ototoxicity. Since the early 2000s, several genetic risk factors linked to cisplatin ototoxicity have been reported. However, the extent to which these genetic risk factors might be shared with those contributing to hearing difficulty in the general population remains unknown. In this study, we investigate if variants with reported links to increased risk of ototoxicity in cisplatin-treated cancer cohorts were also associated with hearing impairment in the general population in the results from a recent meta-analysis (Meta-study; 501,825 participants). Importantly, no significant associations were identified. We also compared association results from our recent genome-wide association study (GWAS) for hearing loss in male testicular cancer survivors (Pt-study; 1,071 participants) with those from both Meta-study and a meta-analysis of the male subset (Male-study; 223,081 participants). We observed evidence for colocalization at the rs7952909 locus across the Male-study and Pt-study results, however, with opposite directions of effects. Across pairwise comparisons, only two variants with matching directions of effects reached significance when relaxed selection cutoffs (10
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.