Rate, Triggers, Severity and Management of Anaphylaxis in Adults Treated in a Canadian Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE) assesses the triggers and management of anaphylaxis and identifies predictors of the development of severe allergic reactions and of epinephrine use. Here, we present data from an urban adult tertiary care emergency department (ED) in Montreal, Canada. METHODS: Potential anaphylaxis cases were identified using ICD-10 codes related to anaphylaxis or allergic reactions. Putative cases underwent chart review to ensure they met anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria. Demographic, clinical and management data were collected. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to assess the effect of demographic characteristics, triggers, and comorbidities on severity and management of reactions. RESULTS: Among 37,730 ED visits, 0.26% (95% CI 0.21, 0.32) fulfilled the definition of anaphylaxis. Food was the suspected trigger in almost 60% of cases. Epinephrine was not administered in almost half of moderate-to-severe cases, and similar numbers of individuals with moderate-to-severe reactions were not prescribed an epinephrine autoinjector. Reaction to shellfish was associated with more severe reactions (OR 13.9; 95% CI 2.2, 89.4). Older individuals and those not receiving steroids were more likely managed without epinephrine (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01, 1.07 and OR 2.97; 95% CI 1.05, 8.39, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis accounted for a substantial number of ED visits in adults, and the most common trigger was food. There is non-adherence to guidelines recommending epinephrine use for all cases of anaphylaxis. We postulate that this may be related to concerns regarding the side effects of epinephrine in adults.
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 | 0.001 | 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".