C-CARE: comparing two years of anaphylaxis in children treated at the Montreal Children’s Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies suggest that rates of anaphylaxis, the most severe form of an allergic reaction, are increasing in Pediatric Emergency Departments (PED). Significant gaps still exist regarding the prevalence, triggers and temporal trends of anaphylaxis in Canada. The Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE) was created with the primary goal of determining the societal burden of anaphylaxis in Canada; our aim was to use C-CARE to examine temporal trends in anaphylaxis rates. Over a 2-year period (April 2011 to April 2013), children presenting to the Montreal Children’s Hospital PED with anaphylaxis were recruited. The treating physician documented characteristics and triggers of anaphylactic reactions using a standardized data entry form. Charts of all PED patients were reviewed to identify anaphylactic cases that were missed in prospective recruitment. Among 81,677 PED visits in Year 1, 168 anaphylaxis cases were identified (0.21%) versus 218 anaphylaxis cases among 78,650 PED visits in Year 2 (0.27%), yielding a difference of 0.06% (95% CI, 0.02%, 0.12%) between the two years. The median age of anaphylaxis was 4.8 years (IQR: 2.3-10.1) in Year 1 and 5.9 years (IQR 2.1-11.1) in Year 2. There was a slightly higher male predominance in cases of anaphylaxis in both Year 1 (51.8%; 95% CI, 44%, 59.5%) and Year 2 (61%; 95% CI, 54.2%, 67.4%). The major triggers in both years were food allergens (87.5% and 80.6% respectively) with peanut being the most predominant (29.5% and 20.6%) followed by tree nuts (15.5% and 14.8%). Severe anaphylaxis (hypoxia, cyanosis, circulatory collapse, incontinence or neurological symptoms) was found in 7.1% (95% CI, 3.9%, 12.4%) of patients from Year 1 versus 3.7% (95% CI, 1.7%, 7.4%) in Year 2. There was a greater rate of anaphylaxis in the second year of the C-CARE study. In both years, food allergens were found to be the most common trigger with peanuts being the most common food. These results are comparable to the increasing rates of anaphylaxis seen in other westernized countries. Future studies in the Montreal Children’s Hospital as well as in other centers are required to establish temporal trends in anaphylaxis rates, triggers and reaction characteristics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".