MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761049915 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2017.1389691

Effect of pre-harvest and post-harvest conditions on the fruit allergenicity: A review

2017· review· en· W2761049915 on OpenAlexaff
Jin Wang, Sai Kranthi Vanga, Vijaya Raghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsRipeningAllergyFood scienceAllergenFood allergyFood allergensHorticultureBiologyBiotechnologyMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruits are an important source of vitamins and antioxidants that can effectively delay aging and contribute to health and well-being of the human kind. However, they are growing to be one of the primary elicitors of food allergies around the world. Fruit allergens can induce an IgE-mediated (Immunoglobulin E) reaction, presenting with a symptom like localized oral allergy syndrome (OAS). Numerous studies showed that varying environmental and cultivation conditions can influence the fruit allergen content during flowering and ripening stages. Further, the variety, harvesting maturity, and storage conditions can also significantly influence the allergenicity potential. For example, unripe apples and tomatoes have lower levels of allergens compared to ripened fruits. Researchers have also reported that modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) can help reduce Mal d 3 content present in apples during storage. Post-harvest processing like peeling is also considered a good method to help reduce the overall allergenicity in few fruits whose peel might contain majority of the allergens. This review will discuss the overall influence of both pre-harvest and post-harvest factors on the fruit allergens. We will also discuss the progress regarding the cause, symptoms and diagnostic methods of fruit based allergies.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207