Prevalence of 'novel' food allergens worldwide:: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Rationale: Systematically identifying and reviewing population-based studies reporting the prevalence of food allergy enables geographical variations to be described and helps to identify the prevalence of novel food allergens. Such information can inform evidence-based policy and practice at a national and international level, while also identifying gaps in the current evidence base. Objective: To investigate the prevalence, by age, of food allergy to celery, lupin, mustard and sesame in different regions of the world. This systematic review formed part of a wider investigation on the prevalence of a range of allergen Methodology: Systematic searches were conducted using two databases; Web of Science and Pubmed. Grey literature was identified by searching conference proceedings and by consultation with experts in the field. Search results were managed using reference management software. Titles and abstracts, and the full-text of potentially eligible articles were screened for inclusion by the review authors according to the following criteria: Relevant data was extracted from all included studies, and the quality of included studies assessed. All allergens were initially included, however for the purpose of this study only data relevant to celery, lupin, mustard and sesame are presented Results: CELERY: There were four studies which reported prevalence data for celery in Europe as well as the United States and Australia LUPIN: No studies could be found which reported the prevalence of lupin allergy MUSTARD: There were two studies which reported prevalence data for mustard in Europe and the United States and Australia SESAME: There were 13 studies which reported prevalence date for sesame in Europe as well as Canada, Australia and the United States Conclusions: There is surprisingly little data available on the prevalence of these novel food allergens despite the fact that they appear in the top 14 food allergens listed by the EU. Furthermore, the gold-standard of diagnosis, food challenges, were only adopted in one study which looked at sesame allergy in children. Further studies which confirm allergy based on food challenges are needed to understand the true effect these allergens have on the general population. Since the present review was conducted, we are aware that DBPCFC data for celery allergy has emerged from the EuroPrevall project which reports that 41 out of 64 patients (64.1%) who self-reported an adverse reaction to celery experienced a positive reaction when challenged.
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 | 0,015 | 0,052 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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 ».