A consensus protocol for the determination of the threshold doses for allergenic foods: how much is too much?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: While the ingestion of small amounts of an offending food can elicit adverse reactions in individuals with IgE-mediated food allergies, little information is known regarding these threshold doses for specific allergenic foods. While low-dose challenge trials have been conducted on an appreciable number of allergic individuals, a variety of different clinical protocols were used making the estimation of the threshold dose very difficult. OBJECTIVE: A roundtable conference was convened to develop a consensus clinical protocol for low-dose challenge trials for the estimation of threshold doses for specific allergenic foods. METHODS: In May 2002, 20 clinical allergists and other interested parties were invited to participate in a roundtable conference to develop consensus of the key elements of a clinical protocol for low-dose challenge trials. RESULTS: A consensus protocol was developed. Patients with convincing histories of food allergies and supporting diagnostic evidence including past challenge trials or high CAP-RAST scores can be enrolled in low-dose challenge trials. Care must be taken with younger patients to assure that they have not outgrown their food allergy. An approach was developed for the medication status of patients entering such trials. Challenge materials must be standardized, for example, partially defatted peanut flour composed of equal amounts of the three major varieties of peanuts (Florunner, Virginia, Spanish). Challenge materials must be appropriately blinded with sensory evaluation used to confirm the adequacy of blinding. A double-blind, placebo-controlled design should be used for low-dose challenge trials. Low-dose challenge trials would begin at doses of 10 microg of the allergenic food and would continue with doses of 100 microg and 1 mg followed by specific higher doses up to 100 mg depending upon the expert judgement of the physician; even higher doses might be applied to assure that the patient is indeed reactive to the particular food. A 30-min time interval would be used between doses, and reactive doses would be expressed as both discrete and cumulative doses. The goal of each challenge would be to develop objective symptoms; trials should not be discontinued on the basis of subjective symptoms only. Statistically, a minimum of 29 patients would be enrolled in low-dose challenge trials for each allergenic food because 0 reactors out of 29 patients at a particular dose allow the conclusion that there is 95% certainty that 90% of allergic individuals will not react to that dose. CONCLUSION: A consensus protocol was developed. Using this protocol, it will be possible to estimate threshold doses for allergenic foods, the lowest amount that elicits mild, objective symptoms in highly sensitive individuals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,221 | 0,231 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,017 | 0,020 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,032 | 0,020 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».