Cockroach sensitivity in allergic rhinitis patients; is it significant? To see prevalence of cockroach sensitivity in allergic rhinitis patients in Kingston area
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".