Cockroach sensitivity in allergic rhinitis patients; is it significant? To see prevalence of cockroach sensitivity in allergic rhinitis patients in Kingston area
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Method Retrospective chart review of patients evaluated for allergic rhinitis and underwent skin prick testing. A cohort of 250 patients was randomly selected with inclusion criteria being symptomatic allergic rhinitis and positive allergy skin prick testing to usual panel of allergens. Data collection included demographics, smoking exposure, symptom pattern, presence or absence of non-nasal symptoms, positive skin prick testing for cockroach and other environmental allergens such as dust mite, cat, dog, and seasonal pollens. Results Allergy to seasonal allergens was found to be the most common (n=191, 76.4%) followed by house dust mite (n=149, 59.6%) and cat allergen (n=118, 47.2%). Cockroach sensitization was found in 62 (25%). Among the cockroach sensitivity group, 8 patients had monosensitization to cockroach. All of them had perennial symptoms. 75%of these people were residents of urban areas. Two patients who had symptoms for more than 8 years had developed asthma.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it