Oral immunotherapy for milk allergy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Milk oral immunotherapy (MOIT) may be an alternative to avoidance in treatment of patients with IgE-mediated cow milk allergy (IMCMA). We aim to determine the effect of MIOT through a systematic review. Randomized controlled trials on MOIT were identified from 13 databases, conference proceedings, theses and unpublished trials, as part of a review with the Cochrane Collaboration. A total 1945 records were identified and screened. Children and adults with IMCMA were included. Studies were selected and methodological quality assessed independently by two reviewers. 138 records were reviewed and 13 were included, representing 4 trials. A total of 170 patients were studied (88 MOIT, 82 control). Two studies used blinding and 2 used an avoidance diet control. Fifty-two (59%) patients of the MOIT group were able to tolerate a full serving of milk (about 200 mL) compared to 7 (9%) of the control group (RR 6.05, 95 CI 3.2, 11.44). In addition, 26 (30%) in the MOIT group could ingest a partial serving of milk (10-184 mL) while none could in the control group (RR 11.55, 95% CI 2.85, 46.87). None of the studies assessed the patients following a period off immunotherapy. Adverse reactions were common (79 of 88 had at least one symptom), although most were local and mild. For every 7 patients receiving MOIT, 1 required intramuscular epinephrine. One patient required it on 2 occasions. MOIT can lead to desensitization in the majority of individuals with IMCMA although the development of long-term tolerance has not been established.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".