MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069765191 · doi:10.1139/b01-048

A survey of the presence and morphology of orbicules in European allergenic angiosperms. Background information for allergen research

2001· article· en· W2069765191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stefan Vinckier, Erik Smets

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVlaamse regering
KeywordsTapetumUrticaceaePollenBotanyStamenPolygonaceaeAsteraceaeBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allergenic activity in the atmospheric aerosol of small particles in the size range of a few micrometres or less may play an important role in causing allergic reactions in the lower regions of the lungs, often seen in pollinosis. Orbicules (= Ubisch bodies) are small, mostly spherical granules of sporopollenin, which can occur on the radial and innermost tangential wall of secretory tapetum cells. In instances where orbicules of allergenic species are dispersed into the atmosphere, they may act as effective vectors of allergens. We investigated the presence and morphology of orbicules in 15 allergenic species using scanning electron microscopy. Orbicules were present in all species investigated of the families Betulaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Fagaceae, Poaceae, Polygonaceae, and Urticaceae. In the species of the Asteraceae and Oleaceae studied, orbicules were lacking. Almost all orbicules observed were spiny. Their mean diameters range from 0.342 to 1.130 μm. Orbicules can be part of the fraction of small particles in the size range of a few micrometres or less, emitted from the anthers. Our results clearly indicate that a thorough investigation of the sites of allergens across the whole anther is required to reveal whether or not these orbicules possess allergens.Key words: allergenic plants, allergen research, morphology, orbicules.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207