Update on the prevalence of allergic sensitization to Russian thistle in South-eastern Ontario: retrospective chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russian thistle (RT) was identified as a potentially clinically significant allergen in phase three of the NHANES survey with over 15% of tested individuals having positive skin tests. Previously estimated prevalence rates of RT skin positivity in Kingston and surrounding catchment area were ~10%. RT was subsequently added to a standard allergen skin testing panel at Queen’s University’s Allergy clinic. To determine the updated prevalence rate of skin test positivity to Russian Thistle in patients from Kingston and the Southeastern Ontario area, in an unselected patient population. A retrospective chart review documented the rate of sensitization to RT extract (ALK-Abello). Only patients with appropriate histamine responses were included. Demographic data, presence of relevant clinical symptoms and skin test responses to RT and other cross-reacting allergens were recorded. 609 charts were reviewed and 304 patients underwent skin testing for RT. Of these, 43 (13.8%) were positive. Of the test-positive cohort, 86% (37/43) had concomitant symptoms of allergic rhinitis/asthma. 41% (18/43) had symptoms that correlated with the predominant RT pollen season. 93% and 58% of these persons had concomitant positive skin tests to ragweed and birch; allergens with known cross-reactivity. This suggests the prevalence of skin test positivity to Russian thistle in Kingston and surrounding area to be approximately 14%, with over 40% of patients reporting correlating symptoms. A higher degree of cross-reactivity with ragweed than previously known may exist. Continuing to include Russian thistle as part of routine allergen testing may further establish its clinical significance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".