Latex allergy in children with oesophageal atresia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Latex allergy is frequently found in children and patients with spina bifida and urogenital abnormalities and have been considered at risk for latex sensitization. The aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence of latex sensitization in patients with oesophageal atresia and undergoing three or more surgical procedures and to identify possible risk factors in the process of latex sensitization. METHODS: A total of 20 patients were analysed: 19 boys and one girl. The oesophageal atresias were as follows: type I in three children, type II in two and type III in 15 children. Surgical and anaesthetic procedures, intensive care management, age, type of oesophageal atresia, associated congenital malformations, Waterston and Montreal prognostic classifications were considered as risk factors that may be implicated in the process of sensitization. RESULTS: Five patients (25%) were considered sensitized to latex (group 1) and 15 (75%) nonsensitized (group 2). Among the five sensitized patients, three reported clinical reactions to latex, while the other two presented only specific IgE sensitization. The number of operations, the total hours of surgery, the number of drainages, the total days of drainage, the total days of central venous catheter were significantly greater in group 1 than in group 2. Both of the highest risk oesophageal atresia classes (Waterston C and Montreal II) were related to latex allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Oesophageal atresia, especially in cases of prolonged management, must be considered as a risk for the development of latex allergy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".