Cytokine Synthesis in Occupational Allergy to Caddisflies in Hydroelectric Plant Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workers in hydroelectric plants appear to be readily sensitized to caddisfly allergens. This sensitization probably occurs de novo from occupational exposure. In some workers, sensitization occurs on a non-atopic background. Cytokine synthesis of IFN-gamma, IL-5 and IL-13 in atopic and non-atopic caddisfly-allergic workers was examined to determine if responses were similar or different. METHODS: Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated from atopic caddisfly-allergic workers, non-atopic caddisfly-allergic workers and non-atopic caddisfly-exposed but non-allergic workers. Stimulation with caddisfly antigens was carried out and synthesis of IFN-gamma, IL-5 and IL-13 was determined by sandwich ELISA. RESULTS: Both caddisfly-allergic and non-allergic subjects responded to stimulation with caddisfly extract. The response in non-atopic caddisfly-non-allergic subjects was TH1 predominant, while that in atopic caddisfly-allergic subjects was TH2 predominant. The response in non-atopic caddisfly-allergic subjects was between that of the atopic caddisfly-allergic workers and the non-atopic caddisfly-non-allergic workers and the trend was to a TH2 response. Work-related symptoms were similarly intermediate between the atopic caddisfly-allergic and non-atopic caddisfly-non-allergic group. Differences were significant for IFN-gamma/IL-5 ratios but not IFN-gamma/IL-13 ratios for atopic and non-atopic caddisfly-allergic individuals, compared to non-atopic caddisfly-non-allergic workers. However, a linear relationship existed between IFN-gamma synthesis and IL-5 and IL-13 synthesis in non-atopic caddisfly-allergic workers but not in atopic caddisfly-allergic subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Caddisfly allergy in hydroelectric workers may be a useful model for the development of allergy to a previously unencountered allergen, and points to some interesting differences between atopic and non-atopic subjects who become sensitized to environmental allergens.
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".