MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1584478564 · doi:10.1186/1710-1492-10-s2-a38

Buckwheat anaphylaxis: a case report

2014· article· en· W1584478564 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Persia Pourshahnazari, Gordon L. Sussman

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicTransgenic Plants and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngioedemaMedicineAnaphylaxisIngestionNauseaAllergyDermatologyThroatDiphenhydramineTongueAbdominal painAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicineHistamineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Case A healthy 32-year-old Chinese female presented with three episodes of allergic reactions after ingestion of buckwheat. She was assessed in the allergy clinic after eating cake containing buckwheat flour. After a few bites she experienced tongue tingling and throat tightness. Within 30 minutes she developed urticaria, nausea and abdominal cramping, which subsided with diphenhydramine. Eight months prior she had an episode of abdominal cramping, urticaria and lip angioedema within 45 minutes of eating multigrain toast. Two years earlier she had eaten buckwheat noodles at a restaurant in China. She developed abdominal cramping, emesis and throat tightness 30 minutes after ingestion, and was treated at a local emergency department. There was no other history of food, drug, insect or latex allergy. Skin prick testing was performed for food allergies. All food skin tests were negative with appropriate controls. Skin prick testing was performed to the extracted cake and was strongly positive at 9mm (W9F29). Prick testing to extracted buckwheat was remarkably positive at 48mm (W48F70). Specific IgE to buckwheat was obtained and was high at 6.13KU/L.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicTransgenic Plants and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207