MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

198 AAAAI Survey on Immunotherapy Practice Patterns Concerning Dosing, Dose-Adjustment after Missed Doses and Duration of Immunotherapy

2012· article· en· W2057918552 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Allergy Organization Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingImmunotherapyDuration (music)Medical physicsImmunologyPharmacologyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several practical issues dealing with the exact application of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among European and US allergists are not well known. Guidelines on AIT give recommendations and suggestions for only some of them. We present this unique survey with worldwide response. METHODS: The AAAAI immunotherapy committee conducted a web-based practice patterns survey (program: Survey Monkey) among all members in&outside US on dosing, dose-adjustment after missed doses and duration of AIT. RESULTS: 1201 Returned questionnaires (almost 25% response rate). 21% were non-US-Canada members. Maintenance doses in USCan are (mean/median): Dermatophagoides farinae (Df) combined with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Dpt): 2155/1000AU; Df solo 2484/1000AU. Dpt when combined with Df 1937/1000AU; Dpt solo: 2183/1000AU.Cat 3224/2000BAU. Grass 11,410/4000BAU. 57-65% of the dosing falls within the recommended Practice Parameters recommended ranges. Non-USCan allergists expressed maintenance doses in many different units making analysis impossible. Dose-adjustment after missed doses is based on ‘time elapsed since the last applied dose’ by 77% of USCan and 58% of non-USCan allergists and on ‘time since missed scheduled dose’ by the rest. Doses are adjusted when a patient comes in more than 14 d/5 wk after the last administration at build-up/maintenance by both USCan and non-USCan colleagues. The mostly followed dose-adjustment schedules after 1, 2, 3 missed doses are: Build-up: repeat last dose, reduce by one dose, reduce by 2 doses; maintenance: reduce by one dose, reduce by 2 doses, reduce by 3 doses. 26% uses a different approach reducing doses by a certain percentage or volume. AIT is restarted after a gap in build-up of >30 days and of >12 weeks during maintenance in both groups (median). Outside USCan AIT is prescribed for 3 years (Median). However, 75% of USCan allergists prescribes AIT for 5 years. Main reasons why to continue AIT beyond 5 years: ‘symptoms came back after stopping’ or “patient afraid to relapse.” CONCLUSIONS: These results show regional differences on some points (especially AIT duration) and they suggest in which direction to plan further research in 2 areas to establish universal dose-adjustment plans for missed applications and define the usefulness (or lack of) of long-term AIT. Moreover, there is still room for improvement in the way AIT is dosed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it