The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 103 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases
Abstract
Chemical communication does appear to occur among humans, but several examples reported in the literature do not meet the proposed definition for communication by pheromones.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
96 Own interpretation · 35 No full text of the sources · 20 Not checked yet · 17 Sources not found · 15 No basis given · 3 Partly supported · 2 Own result · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The increase in serum luteinizing hormone and testosterone when male mice and hamsters are exposed to chemosensory stimuli from females appears to be absolutely dependent on vomeronasal integrity (Coquelin et al., 1984;Pfeiffer and Johnston, 1994).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Coquelin et al., 1984 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page not provided) show that removing the vomeronasal organ greatly reduced LH responses to female urine in male mice. But some mice without the organ still responded to urine, and most responded to a freely behaving female, so the paper does not establish absolute dependence for all female stimuli. It reports a testosterone finding from another mouse study but does not study testosterone or hamsters itself. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Pfeiffer and Johnston, 1994 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that vomeronasal removal eliminated androgen surges in hamsters investigating female vaginal secretions, and describes comparable LH findings for mice exposed to female urine. But it also says vomeronasal lesions did not eliminate hamster androgen surges during interactions with females; the claimed absolute dependence is therefore broader than the paper supports. The mouse testosterone surge is described as presumed rather than directly established by the cited mouse finding. (LLM, conf=0.89)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These authors showed the structure becoming more simplified later in development.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The existence of a VNO in the human embryo similar to the VNOs of other species is undisputed (Boehm and Gasser, 1993).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Boehm and Gasser, 1993 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, several examples reported in the literature do not meet the proposed definition for communication by pheromones: 'chemical substances released by one member of a species as communication with another member, to their mutual benefit'.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Induction of uterine growth and estrus in female prairie voles normally resulting from exposure to males is also dependent on an intact VNO (Tubbiola and Wysocki, 1997).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tubbiola and Wysocki, 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is clear from both reports that the number of such cells is small: ~4 per 100 µm epithelial surface (Takami et al., 1993) or less (Trotier et al., 2000).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Microanatomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Takami et al., 1993 source
- Not matchedcites Trotier et al., 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the absence of OMP and any reports of putative vomeronasal receptor genes (see below) means that any such cells are quite different from known VSNs in other species.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Microanatomy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the axons in this region belong to other well-recognized systems of the nasal cavity, the trigeminal, autonomic and nervus terminalis systems.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Connectivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Numerous reports of a structure identified as the VNO in the nasal septum in adult humans agree that it is a blind ending diverticulum in the septal mucosa opening via a depression (the VNO pit) into the nasal cavity ~2 cm in from the nostril.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They report an electrophysiological response to application of small amounts of steroid chemicals confined to the VNO region.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Positive evidence?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 69
- Probably not a substantial claim. 63
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The epithelium lining the human VNO is unlike that of VNOs in other species and unlike that of olfactory or respiratory epithelium in humans (Moran et al., 1991;Stensaas et al., 1991).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Microanatomy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Moran et al., 1991 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s conclusion describes the human VNO lining as unlike other epithelial linings described in the human body, supporting the comparison with human olfactory and respiratory epithelium. In “The fine structure of the VNO in man,” however, it says some human VNO cells resemble cells in the rat VNO’s nonsensory epithelium. The broader claim that the lining is unlike VNO epithelium in other species is therefore not fully supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stensaas et al., 1991 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The human vomeronasal epithelium differs in appearance from both the sensory and non-sensory epithelia in the VNOs of other species and from nasal 'respiratory' epithelium (Moran et al., 1991;Stensaas et al., 1991).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Microanatomy
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Moran et al., 1991 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Does the human VNO contain sensory receptors?” (page unavailable), the paper says human VNO cells are not ultrastructurally identical to sensory neurons described in other mammals. “The fine structure of the human VNO” distinguishes a ciliated cell from those in typical respiratory epithelium. But “The fine structure of the VNO in man” says human VNO cells resemble cells in the nonsensory VNO epithelium of mammals such as rats, so the claimed difference from nonsensory epithelium is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stensaas et al., 1991 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The recognition of newborn lambs by ewes also appears to depend on the main olfactory system (Levy et al., 1995), although a vomeronasal contribution has also been reported (Booth and Katz, 2000).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Levy et al., 1995 source
- Supportedcites Booth and Katz, 2000 source
The Booth and Katz citation is attached to the reported vomeronasal contribution, not the claim about the main olfactory system. In the Discussion, the authors conclude that the vomeronasal organ helps ewes recognize their newborn lambs during nursing. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Reproductive suppression in subordinate females, as may occur in some primate species (Barrett et al., 1993), may also involve a conservation of metabolic effort until more favorable circumstances arise.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Barrett et al., 1993 source
The citation follows the example of reproductive suppression in subordinate females of some primate species, not the citing authors’ suggestion about conserving metabolic effort. The paper reports that subordinate female marmosets remain anovulatory while housed with dominant females (opening summary); that supports the cited example. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It contains bipolar cells similar to the developing vomeronasal sensory neurons of other species and also generates luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH)producing cells as in other species (Boehm et al., 1994;Kajer and Fischer Hansen, 1996).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Boehm et al., 1994 source
- Not matchedcites Kajer and Fischer Hansen, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The latter were unable to find any VNO structure at later stages (19 weeks), although others have shown a simplified but clear VNO continuing to increase in size up to at least 30 weeks (Bohm and Gasser, 1993;Smith et al., 1997).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bohm and Gasser, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith et al., 1997 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The responsive neurons were in the apical zone of the vomeronasal epithelium where most neurons appear to express members of the V1R class of putative vomeronasal receptor genes.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Putative receptor gene expression
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Axon bundles are reported in the submucosa (Stensaas et al., 1991), but do not appear to arise from axon bundles penetrating the lamina propria in the same way as in vomeronasal epithelia of other species.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Microanatomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stensaas et al., 1991 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They have not been shown to have axons leaving the epithelium nor to make synaptic contact with axons in the epithelium, so if they are chemosensitive they have no obvious way of communication with the brain.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Microanatomy
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are many elongated cells presenting a microvillar surface to the lumen of the organ but most are not similar to microvillar vomeronasal sensory organs (VSNs) of other species.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Microanatomy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, its relationship to animal vomeronasal genes is not good evidence for such a function and throws no light on the question of human vomeronasal function.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Putative receptor gene expression
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The structure is reported at least unilaterally in 90% or more of subjects in some reports or in 50% or fewer in other reports.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The location of this structure is consistent with the location of the VNO in embryos (Trotier et al., 2000) and it has a similar simplified form, with no large blood vessels, cavernous sinuses or supporting cartilage.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trotier et al., 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is also evidence in these reports for a systemic physiological response to this stimulation and although anecdotal evidence suggests no conscious response in awake human subjects, there is evidence for an alteration of mood.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Positive evidence?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“There is no evidence that this nerve is chemosensory or that the human terminalis nerve carries the axons of VSNs (although the two do run together in most mammals), but it may innervate the vomeronasal epithelium (Witkin and Silverman, 1983;Wirsig and Leonard, 1986).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Connectivity
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Trotier et al. estimate ~92% with some evidence of at least one VNO pit in subjects with no septal surgery examined multiple times, but a substantially lower number after septal surgery (Trotier et al., 2000).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trotier et al., 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The best candidates for VSNs, those expressing NSE, have not been traced in connectivity with axons and neither have any other cells of the human VNO.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Connectivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their expression in the vomeronasal epithelium is no guarantee: some pheromones are clearly detected by the main olfactory system (see below) and possible non-pheromone functions of the vomeronasal system (as in snakes) have not been investigated.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Putative receptor gene expression
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is no trace of this structure in adult humans (Humphrey 1940;Meisami and Bhatnagar, 1998), although it is present in the fetus (Chuah and Zeng, 1987), and it is generally reported missing in rhesus monkeys and other old world primates (Wysocki, 1979;Stephan et al., 1982).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Connectivity
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These genes are expressed in VSNs and are similar in apparent transmembrane organization to olfactory receptor genes (Buck and Axel, 1991), but differ in much of their DNA sequence.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Putative receptor gene expression
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Buck and Axel, 1991 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Axons are observed in the epithelium (Stensaas et al., 1991), but not in continuity or in synaptic contact with epithelial cells.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Microanatomy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stensaas et al., 1991 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There are axons within the human VNO and Schwann cell-wrapped bundles of axons underlying it (Stensaas et al., 1991;Jahnke and Merker, 2000), so it is somewhat surprising that Trotier et al. did not find S100 expression close to the VNO (Trotier et al., 2000).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Connectivity
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no serious error in methodology that is obvious from the published papers, so they have to be taken seriously.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Positive evidence?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These genes were labeled 'putative pheromone receptor genes', although at the time of their discovery the evidence that they might code for pheromone receptor molecules was tenuous.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Putative receptor gene expression
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The nervus terminalis (Brookover, 1914;Pearson, 1941) characteristically connects the VNO and the brain in the fetus and clearly persists in human adults (Brookover, 1914).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Connectivity
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Genes similar to the vomeronasal receptor genes are also present in the human genome.Those found in initial searches through the genome are clearly pseudogenes (Dulac and Axel, 1995;Herrada and Dulac, 1997), i.e. they have defects in their sequence that would prevent transcription and translation of the expected transmembrane protein.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Putative receptor gene expression
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Trotier et al. recently demonstrated that the endoscopic appearance of the VNO pit can vary, unequivocal on one inspection and invisible on a later inspection, or vice versa (Trotier et al., 2000).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Description: anatomical, developmental and genetic evidence Structure
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trotier et al., 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In a recent paper Rodriguez et al. reported the discovery of a previously undetected human gene closely related to the V1R family in rodents (Rodriguez et al., 2000).Whether it is expressed in human vomeronasal epithelium was not reported, but it is expressed in the main olfactory epithelium.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Putative receptor gene expression
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rodriguez et al., 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not all human sequences related to vomeronasal receptor genes have been investigated in detail, so this negative evidence should be viewed with some caution.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Putative receptor gene expression
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Whatever its anthropological merit, this argument is logically circular in the context of an evaluation of VNO function because it starts with the premise that there is no human VNO.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stoddart, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hormonal changes elicited by steroid chemicals in these studies are not evidence for a physiological connection between the VNO region and the brain and provide no evidence for VNO function.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there is no requirement that vomeronasal chemoreceptors be stimulated only by non-volatile chemicals.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The steroids elicited clear EVG responses; the conventional odors did not.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, repeated stimulus delivery over a prolonged period would make low level stimulation of other nasal sensory systems or systemic uptake of stimulus chemicals more likely.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The precise location of the recording electrode in EVG recording experiments is not well described, but its effective recording volume is likely to be biased towards the regions close to the opening (VNO pit).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Comparison with the EOG
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sensory input of any kind in humans, unless signaling imminent danger, is often subordinate to experiential and cultural factors.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as discussed above, any local VNO response must be communicated to the brain before a sensory communication pathway is established.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The trend towards synchronization arises from either shortening or lengthening of the cycle by secretions produced at different phases of the donor's cycle [but see the comment by Whitten (Whitten, 1999)].”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would seem surprising if all olfactory/chemosensory communication were lost.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There are close connections with the amygdala and limbic system (Halpern, 1987;Meredith, 1991), the seat of emotional, hormonal and autonomic control, but there are only indirect connections with the cerebral cortex, generally considered to be the site of consciousness.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halpern, 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Meredith, 1991 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These are substances that elicit sexually dimorphic EVGs and are related to skin chemicals claimed to be human pheromones.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jacob and McClintock, 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intra-specific chemical communication, some of which is vomeronasal and some olfactory, is a common feature in land mammals.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Higher primates have highly developed visual systems and reduced olfactory systems, but still use olfactory information.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They conclude that chemical communication does occur and are willing to call the chemical mediators pheromones in some cases.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Preti and Wysocki, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It also assumes that detection of 'pheromones' signaling reproductive state would be a vomeronasal function.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stoddart, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The EVG is reported (again without experimental details) not to be eliminated by topical lidocaine, a local anesthetic, or atropine, an autonomic cholinergic antagonist (Monti-Bloch et al., 1998b).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Potential artifacts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Monti-Bloch et al., 1998b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As a second type of response, Monti Bloch et al. have also reported preliminary evidence that bipolar cells aspirated from the human VNO pit show an electrical responses to some 'vomeropherins' (Monti-Bloch et al., 1998b).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Monti-Bloch et al., 1998b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The report that local anesthetics fail to block the EVG indicates that nerve transmission is not involved, which rules out CNS reflexes.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Summary: electrical responses
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The substances involved are unknown and although the effect does appear to be chemosensory, there is no evidence that it is due to vomeronasal sensory input.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other studies (Berliner et al., 1996) used a different type of stimulator which was not described in detail and for which there were no control experiments to determine stimulus spread.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berliner et al., 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These include changes in blood pressure and heart rate, small but significant changes in hormonal levels (Monti-Bloch et al., 1998a) and some changes in mood (Grosser et al., 2000).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Monti-Bloch et al., 1998a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Grosser et al., 2000 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main olfactory system in general has good connections with cerebral cortex, but also has connections to the amygdala.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in the cases where main olfactory input is the only important information on pheromones we still have no idea whether information about main olfactory pheromones has access to the cortex or is routed through the amygdala and basal forebrain.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These experiments have not been published in a fully refereed report.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The subjects generally reported no sensation from direct chemical stimulation of the VNO, even when an EVG was recorded, but they reported an odor sensation when an EOG was elicited.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although no anatomical connection has been demon-strated, Monti-Bloch et al. deduce a physiological connection with the brain because stimulus delivery to the VNO pit elicited several systemic responses (Monti-Bloch and Grosser, 1991Grosser, , 1998a,b),b).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Physiology
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Monti-Bloch and Grosser, 1991 source
- Not matchedcites Grosser, 1998a,b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Preti and Wysocki's conclusions are based on specific examples, but a similar conclusion would not be outrageous on basic principles.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Priming pheromones produce a change of state in the receiver, usually a change in hormonal secretion that primes the animal for a later response.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps we don't need to distinguish categorically between priming and signaling communications: both are essentially informational.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, one of the prime examples of main olfactory pheromones, nipple search behavior in rabbits, appears not to be learned, although the same response pattern can be conditioned to arbitrary odors.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some benefit to the receiver in avoiding parasite transmission may be associated with avoidance of fecal odors, but a similar benefit with respect to general body odors is less likely, and a benefit to the sender in either case seems doubtful if no definite message is transmitted.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may well be in both of these cases that the learning involved is imprinting of a particular combination from a limited set of signals.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case the chemical is not a pheromone although a response normally elicited by pheromonal communication has been linked to it by conditioning.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are many biological chemicals that can be expected to evoke behavioral and mood changes.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inter-specific communication could be mutually beneficial, for example where chemosensory information about defense chemicals benefits the receiver by allowing avoidance.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some of these responses, such as avoidance and disgust with fecal and body odors, may be culturally determined.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The essence of the concept is that a particular chemical or complex of chemicals communicates meaning and, thus, must be identified.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The other class of pheromones, releasing pheromones, were originally considered to release a stereotyped behavioral pattern that required no further information for its completion.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Chemical communication occurs in humans.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Worst case: Vomeronasal function is not necessary to explain any aspect of chemical communication in humans, nor is it necessary for pheromonal communication.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This concept seemed inappropriate for mammals, where responses are often modified by experience or other contingencies, and behavioral responses are now said to be elicited by 'signaling' pheromones (Bronson, 1971(Bronson, , 1976;;Albone, 1984).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bronson, 1971
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bronson, 1976 source
- Not matchedcites Albone, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Identifying mutual benefit in a given case is not always easy, but the criterion provides a conceptual framework for understanding the establishment of a chemical communication.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Too rigid a definition can make its applicability to real situations so limited that it is useless.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Odor communication between flowers and pollinating insects is mutually beneficial, but I would not label it pheromonal because it occurs across species, even though its evolutionary mechanisms may be similar to those maintaining intra-specific mutually beneficial communication.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The term pheromone was coined to describe a chemical substance which carries a message about the physiological or behavioral state of an insect to members of its own species, resulting in 'a specific reaction, for example a definite behaviour or a developmental process' (Karlson and Luscher, 1959).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Karlson and Luscher, 1959 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are not pheromone communications because they are not mutually beneficial and not intra-specific.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existence of a functional VNO in humans would not be ruled out either by the presence or the absence of pheromone communication in humans nor, if present, by any of its features, such as learned versus unlearned responses.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Best case:
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, too broad a definition devalues the term and also makes it useless.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It can be argued (Beauchamp et al., 1976) that there is no need for a special term for mutually beneficial chemical communication, but, as emphasized by Karlson and Luscher (Karlson and Luscher, 1959), some distinction between communication and a casual use of chemosensory information does seem a useful distinction.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We know that in humans mood can affect future behavior (a sign of information transfer) and reliable biases in behavior could have evolutionary consequences.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Particular chemicals may be associated with particular objects, but there may be no necessity for the chemicals to be identified, and the associations can be reassigned.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“On the other hand, a change of mood on exposure to a human-derived chemical (Grosser et al., 2000;Jacob and McClintock, 2000) does not adequately define a pheromone.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are other sensory systems that could be involved.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Function: evidence from chemical communication?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“They concluded that there is evidence for priming pheromones in humans, including the data on menstrual cycle shifts (although the latter do not clearly meet the mutual benefit criterion proposed here) (Preti and Wysocki, 1999).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Preti and Wysocki, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This would require that the communication contributed to evolutionary 'fitness' for both sender and receiver.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In the presence of male stimuli, group housed females return to estrus cycling (the 'Whitten Effect') (Whitten, 1959), clearly a mutually beneficial response.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Whitten, 1959
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, there seems to be some advantage to our communication in arbitrarily limiting the term pheromone to intra-specific communication.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It is clear in the original description, and in a later more extensive review of examples (Karlson and Butenandt, 1959), that this was to be real communication, beneficial to the sender and, by implication, to the receiver.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This mechanism is less suitable for communication where the messages have special meanings.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The response of newborn rabbits to the mother's nipple (Hudson and Distel, 1986), referred to above, and the standing response of a receptive female pig to the male's pheromone (Dorries et al., 1997) both depend on the main olfactory system.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hudson and Distel, 1986 source
- Not matchedcites Dorries et al., 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, if we concentrate on pheromone communication rather than pheromone chemicals, we avoid definitional problems associated with chemicals that have different meanings in different contexts or to different individuals, for example mature versus immature or male versus female.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“If this mutual benefit requirement is included as an explicit part of the definition (Rutowski, 1981;Meredith, 1983), the application of the term becomes more restricted but more scientifically useful.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-specialist functions of mammalian olfactory systems may involve a simple association between a complex of chemicals and an external situation, permitting later recognition of similar situations.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In cases where the subordinate and dominant females are genetically related there might be some increase in inclusive fitness (inclusive fitness takes into account an individual's contribution to the reproductive success of related individuals that carry some of the same genes).”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case the mutual benefit is clear, and a good case can be made for many other priming pheromonal communications in mice.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can be sure that the authors did not mean that the individual organism created this capacity, but that it was established and maintained by natural selection.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They did not find solid evidence for signaling pheromones but they point out that mammalian, and especially human, behavior is influenced by many factors.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Preti and Wysocki, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that the same chemicals may be used by different species, whether or not in different combinations or different circumstances, is also not a problem.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where a mutual advantage does not seem reasonable, communication is suspect.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recognition of a mate's pheromone signature in the pregnancy block or 'Bruce effect' in mice also appears to be learned, but this is a vomeronasal process.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many examples of 'a specific reaction' to biological chemicals are then excluded from the category of 'pheromone communications'.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It does imply that meaning is not infinitely reassignable; that it is not just an association even though there are instances where arbitrary odors can be substituted for preprogrammed stimuli.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If there is no communication there seems no reason to use a special term.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Pheromones
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we didn't have the positive evidence from EVG, autonomic and psychological responses, reasonable scientific judgment would assign the role of detecting human-derived chemicals that might be involved in chemical communication to the main olfactory system.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Opinion:
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence or absence of pheromones and pheromonal communication is independent of the existence and/or functionality of a human VNO.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Worst case: Vomeronasal function is not necessary to explain any aspect of chemical communication in humans, nor is it necessary for pheromonal communication.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, ignoring the evidence for vomeronasal function because most of it comes with commercial baggage is not a rational scientific response in the absence of evidence for error, bias or fraud.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Opinion:
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The EVG constitutes evidence for a selective and sensitive response to human-derived chemicals located in the region of the VNO.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Opinion:
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The electrical and systemic responses recorded from the VNO region are not artifacts of electrode movement or leakage of stimuli to the olfactory area.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The expression of a vomeronasal-type receptor gene in humans raises the possibility that such genes may underlie chemosensitivity in the vomeronasal region.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Summary: evidence for human vomeronasal function
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systemic autonomic responses and emotional changes elicited by stimulation in this region suggest some chemosensitivity, even though the anatomical substrate is difficult to demonstrate and seems unlikely to be conventional VSNs.”
§ Human Vomeronasal Organ Function: A Critical Review of Best and Worst Cases > Opinion:
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The electrical and systemic responses recorded from the VNO region are not artifacts of electrode movement or leakage of stimuli to the olfactory area.
The paper relies on this without support.
Whether vomeronasal systems in mammals have any similar non-social communication functions has not been thoroughly investigated.
“Whether the vomeronasal systems in mammals have any similar non-social communication functions has not been thoroughly investigated.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There has been a long-standing dispute over whether there is a VNO at all in adults.
“In humans there has been a long-standing dispute over whether there is a VNO at all in adults.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The electrical and systemic responses recorded from the VNO region are not artifacts of electrode movement or leakage of stimuli to the olfactory area.
“The local response is an artifact, albeit surprisingly dependent on the nature of the stimulus, perhaps because of electrode movement between stimulations.Alternatively, the response could be from non-chemosensory cells with no connections to the brain.Systemic responses could be due to leakage of stimuli to the olfactory area.”
Citations
Cites
A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: A molecular basis for odor recognition
Buck, L., & Axel, R. (1991) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(91)90418-x · Cited by 4,987
‘Pheromones’: a New Term for a Class of Biologically Active Substances
KARLSON, P., & LÜSCHER, M. (1959) · Nature · doi:10.1038/183055a0 · Cited by 1,364 · cited 7×
“The term pheromone was coined to describe a chemical substance which carries a message about the physiological or behavioral state of an insect to members of its own species, resulting in 'a specific reaction, for example a definite behaviour or a developmental process' (Karlson and Luscher, 1959).”
BackgroundInfluentialOrigin of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone neurons
Schwanzel-Fukuda, M., & Pfaff, D. W. (1989) · Nature · doi:10.1038/338161a0 · Cited by 1,116
A novel family of genes encoding putative pheromone receptors in mammals
Dulac, C., & Axel, R. (1995) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(95)90161-2 · Cited by 1,001
Menstrual Synchrony and Suppression
MCCLINTOCK, M. K. (1971) · Nature · doi:10.1038/229244a0 · Cited by 777
The Organization and Function of the Vomeronasal System
Halpern, M. (1987) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.10.030187.001545 · Cited by 732
A Multigene Family Encoding a Diverse Array of Putative Pheromone Receptors in Mammals
Matsunami, H., & Buck, L. B. (1997) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80537-1 · Cited by 706
Herrada, G., & Dulac, C. (1997) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80536-x · Cited by 696
Metabolic fuels and reproduction in female mammals
Wade, G. N., & Schneider, J. E. (1992) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(05)80183-6 · Cited by 686
A New Multigene Family of Putative Pheromone Receptors
Ryba, N. J. P., & Tirindelli, R. (1997) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80946-0 · Cited by 598
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [22]22. Getchell, T.V. and Getchell, M.L. (1987) Peripheral mechanims of olfaction: biochemistry and neurophysiology. In Finger, T. and Silver, W. (eds), Neurobiology of Taste and Smell. Wiley, New York, pp. 91-123.
- [63]63. Preti, G. and Wysocki, C.J. (1999) Human pheromones: releasers or primers: fact or myth. In Johnston, R.E., Muller-Schwartze, D. and Sorenson, P. (eds), Advances in Chemical Communication in Vertebrates. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 315-331.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How the olfactory system makes sense of scents
Firestein, S. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35093026 · Cited by 1,261
“For an excellent recent review of the current data on this issue, see ref”
BackgroundLoss of Sex Discrimination and Male-Male Aggression in Mice Deficient for TRP2
Stowers, L., Holy, T. E., Meister, M., Dulac, C. G., & Koentges, G. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1069259 · Cited by 880
Molecular detection of pheromone signals in mammals: from genes to behaviour
Dulac, C. G., & Torello, A. T. (2003) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1140 · Cited by 662
Structure and function of the vomeronasal system: an update
Halpern, M. (2003) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0082(03)00103-5 · Cited by 639
“The history of the discovery of the human VNO has recently been revisited(Bhatnagar and Reid, 1996; Bhatnagar and Smith, 2003)and the status of the human VNS has been extensively reviewed(Greene and Kipen, 2002; Mart́ınez-Marcos, 2001; McClintock, 1998; Meredith, 2001; Monti-Bloch et al., 1998a; Preti and Wysocki, 199…”
BackgroundHOW THE BRAIN PROCESSES SOCIAL INFORMATION: Searching for the Social Brain
Insel, T. R., & Fernald, R. D. (2004) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144148 · Cited by 556
Metadata
- Authors
- Meredith, M.
- Affiliations
- Florida State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Meredith, M.
- ORCID
- Meredith, M.
- Venue
- Chemical Senses
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-05-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 433-445
- ISSN
- 0379-864X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3553
- OpenAlex
- W2169483875
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 98
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 1.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Chemical Senses (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01dc000906-06)
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC00906)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Ion Channels and Receptors
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
- Keywords
- vomeronasal organ, pheromone communication, chemical communication, vomeronasal system, olfaction
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Chemotactic Factors, Electrophysiology, Epithelium, Humans, Pheromones, Vomeronasal Organ, Autocrine Communication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
