Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Allergy to insect stings remains a hazard worldwide and is the object of updated guidelines on management. This paper reviews the various clinical responses that may occur following an insect sting. RECENT FINDINGS: Although the general population is at slight risk, certain groups are more susceptible, including occasionally stung adult male agricultural workers, hobby honey beekeepers and family members of beekeepers. Individuals with systemic mastocytosis are especially reactive to stings. The body of evidence attesting to the marked beneficial effect that 3-5 years of venom immunotherapy has on the natural history of hymenoptera hypersensitivity is especially evident in children. Case reports indicate other consequences of hymenoptera sting, and these are discussed. SUMMARY: Hypersensitivity to insect stings is common and may be life threatening. Although most occur away from medical facilities, their diagnosis and management are important to a wide spectrum of health care professionals. Most reactions to stings are nonallergic manifestations of the venom's toxic effects, and present as erythema, pain and swelling about the sting site. Fire ants bite with their mandibles and pivot their head, inflicting multiple stings that usually result in a sterile pseudopustule at the site. Hypersensitivity responses to venom range from large local reactions (a late-phase response) to life-threatening anaphylaxis. Venom-specific immunotherapy is highly effective in the modification of subsequent reactions to hymenoptera stings, as is whole body extract for fire ant stings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".