Peanut avoidance and peanut allergy diagnosis in siblings of peanut allergic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that siblings of children with peanut allergy (PNA) have a higher prevalence of PNA than the general population. OBJECTIVES: The Canadian Peanut Allergy Registry was used to assess the percentage of siblings of registered index PNA children who were 1) never exposed to peanut or 2) reportedly diagnosed with PNA by a physician without either a history of allergic reaction or a confirmatory testing. Sociodemographic and clinical factors that may be associated with either outcome were evaluated. METHODS: Parents completed a questionnaire on siblings' sociodemographic characteristics, exposure and reaction to peanut, confirmatory tests performed and whether PNA had been diagnosed. RESULTS: Of 932 Registry families, 748 families responded, representing 922 siblings. 13.6% of siblings had never been exposed to peanut, 70.4% (n = 88) of which were born after the index child. Almost 9% of siblings (80) were reported as PNA, but almost half of this group had no history of an allergic reaction to peanut, including five children who also had no testing to confirm PNA. Of these 5, 4 were born after PNA diagnosis in the index child. In a multivariate regression analysis for siblings at least 3 years old, those born after PNA diagnosis in the index child were more likely to have never been exposed to peanut. In a univariate analysis, siblings born after the diagnosis of PNA in the index child were more likely to be diagnosed with PNA without supportive history or confirmatory testing. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data estimate that more than 10% of siblings of PNA patients will avoid peanut and that siblings born after the diagnosis of PNA in an index child are more likely to have never been exposed. Educational programs and guidelines that caution against unnecessary avoidance are required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".