Evaluation of the Main Contact Allergens in Propolis (1995 to 2005)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Propolis, the bee glue, is increasingly used in biocosmetics and for the self-treatment of various diseases. OBJECTIVE: Patients reacting to propolis were requested to participate in further testing with the breakdown constituents of the bee glue. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients agreed to be tested with 18 constituents, including four caffeates (the typical allergens of propolis) derived from the sticky exudates of poplar buds. RESULTS: Seven patients did not react to the propolis constituents tested. In the remaining 20 patients, the four caffeates produced strong reactions. Phenylethyl caffeate, which produced positive reactions in 20 patients, was the leading contact allergen. Benzyl caffeate elicited strong responses in 18 patients, and 3-methyl-2-butenyl caffeate produced reactions in 17 patients. Geranyl caffeate produced positive reactions in 11 patients. The flavonoid tectochrysin gave positive results in 2 patients; ferulic acid, coumaric acid, and methyl cinnamate produced weak responses. CONCLUSIONS: In middle Europe, the caffeates are the responsible allergens in propolis allergy. Patients from other countries, where poplar trees do not grow, become allergic to other propolis constituents but not to the caffeates.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it