Bibliographic record
Abstract
The allergenic potencies of samples of two commercial Alternaria tenuis extracts stored under various conditions were compared at 3 months intervals over a period of 1 year. Aliquots of the extracts at 5.12 mg/ml were maintained in: (a) saline; (b) 50% glycerol-saline mixture; (c) 0.4% phenol-saline; (d) 0.4% phenol-saline containing 0.03% human serum albumin, and (e) samples were also kept in lyophilized form. The samples were stored at ––20, 4, 24, 37 and 56°C. Their potency was measured by radioallergosorbent inhibition assay and by mouse IgE passive cutaneous anaphylaxis (PCA) tests. The lyophilized extracts fully maintained their activity at all temperatures for 12 months. Aqueous extracts with or without preservatives also maintained their potency if stored at ––20,4 and 24°C, but showed a significant loss of PCA activity at 56°C, after 3 months. A deleterious effect of phenol was observed in one of the extracts stored at ––20°C for 3 months, by PCA tests. The use of preservatives to retain potency over a period of 12 months is therefore unnecessary and may be deleterious. The results indicate that, while storage of A. tenuis in a lyophilized form is best at all temperatures, aqueous extracts are also remarkedly stable when stored at ––20, 4 and 24°C, over a 12-month period.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".