Value of skin testing children with a family history of food allergy before ingestion of suspect food allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A family history of food allergy can cause anxiety in parents. This may prevent food introduction in their children. Current guidelines recommend skin testing only when there is a reaction to a food in that specific patient. When there is a family history of food allergy, parents frequently ask their physicians for food testing of their children prior to introduction of specific foods. We conducted this study to determine whether allergy skin testing reduces anxiety levels in parents thereby leading to food introduction. The parents of 50 children with a family history of food allergy completed a Visual Analog Score (VAS) to estimate their anxiety to give their children the specific food of concern. Previously, the children had not eaten the food. The VAS scores were recorded pre- and post-skin testing on a scale from 0 to 10. The likelihood of food introduction pre- and post-skin testing was estimated. The mean age of the children was 3.6 years; the majority were males (62%). Approximately 58% of patients’ parents, 38% siblings and 4% other relatives had food allergy. Most children (78%) had family history of a single food allergen and 60% had a family history of allergy to peanuts. All children tested negative for the food allergen of concern. Mean VAS was statistically different pre- and post-skin testing (pre VAS mean= 7.83 vs post VAS mean = 2.15; p=<0.0001). The likelihood of food introduction pre- and post testing was 4% and 92% respectively. Skin testing reduces the anxiety of parents of children with a family history of food allergy prior to introduction of the food allergen of concern. The food is more likely to be introduced into the diet after negative skin testing. Although it did not occur in this study, there is a still a risk of false positive skin testing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".