MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082117784 · doi:10.1186/1710-1492-6-s1-p1

Likelihood of Stachybotyrs atra sensitization in Canadian populations

2010· article· en· W2082117784 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
DA Fischer, Kim Hl Barrie, ON Kitchener

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitizationBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consecutive patients 12 years of age or older in 2007 were assessed in two separate clinics and prick tested to Stachybotrys atra (provided by Allergy Canada) in addition to the usual screen of allergens. Also noted were sensitization to mould spores in general and atopic status. Any positive skin test to any allergen would indicate atopy and any mould spore test that was positive would indicate mould sensitizatrion. 2855 patients were enrolled, 1231 in Kitchener and 1624 in Barrie. The likelihood of atopy was 50% in Kitchener and 62 % in Barrie. The likelihood of mould sensitization in the atopic population was 18% in Kitchener and 21 % in Barrie. The number of positive tests to Stachybotrys was 10 (2 true positives and 8 boarderline) in Kitchener and 11 (2 true positives and 9 borderline positives) in Barrie. This represents 0.6 % of the total population tested and 1 % of the atopic population. Stachybotrys atra has been suggested to be a major cause of mould allergy recently in North America. Sensitization does not indicate true mold allergy but is a marker for exposure in an atopic population. The extremely low level of sensitization suggests that Stachybotrys atra is not a significant cause of mould allergy in Ontario and is not required in an allergy screen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureFrench-language works237,207