MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076164470 · doi:10.1159/000234253

The Relationship between Total Serum IgE and Castor Bean-Specific IgE Antibodies in Castor Bean-Sensitive Patients from Marseilles

2009· article· en· W2076164470 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Thorpe, D.M. Kemeny, R Panzani, M.H. Lessof

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicToxin Mechanisms and Immunotoxins
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRicinusImmunoglobulin EImmunologyRadioallergosorbent testAllergyMedicineAntibodyCastor oilCastor beansBiologyBotanyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between serum IgE and castor bean (Ricinus communis)-specific IgE was studied in a group of dockworkers and other residents of Marseilles who were diagnosed as having castor bean allergy. The diagnosis was made because they had asthma or other allergic symptoms together with a positive skin test to castor bean. Total serum IgE was found to be higher in castor-bean-allergic patients (mean = 174 IU/ml) than in a control group of local blood donors (mean = 66 IU/ml). IgE levels were not as high as those found in the sera of a previously identified group of castor-bean-allergic dockworkers from Port Sudan (mean = 902 IU/ml). Castor-bean-specific IgE was demonstrated in the serum of 91% of the allergic group and there was some correlation with total IgE (r = 0.53, p less than 0.01). The proportion of IgE antibody specific for castor bean was determined in 20 castor-bean-sensitive patients using the radioallergosorbent test and was found to vary between 9 and 64% (mean = 38% or 265 ng/ml). No castor-bean-specific IgE antibody was detected in the control group.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied ImmunologySame topicToxin Mechanisms and ImmunotoxinsFrench-language works237,207