Effect of histamine strength and devices on skin prick test (SPT) response following antihistamine inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A histamine positive control (HPC) is used in skin prick testing in order to make sure that the patient has a valid wheal/erythema response. Antihistamines and other factors can suppress the skin response to allergens. The purpose of this study is to evaluate different histamine concentrations and SPT devices with antihistamine suppressed subjects. SPT was performed on subjects using multiple allergen extracts and 6mg/mL and 1mg/mL histamine base with devices from 2 manufacturers; Lincoln Diagnostics and Hollister-Stier. Some subjects were tested with diluted Timothy grass extract. A single dose of antihistamine, cetirizine, was taken and SPT performed for up to 72hrs. Suppression of wheal responses was significant following antihistamine up to 20 hr for both HPC and most allergens (15% to 70% wheal size in mm). 1 mg/mL histamine appeared negative in some cases under suppression when the 6mg/mL histamine was positive. The lowered wheal size persisted in some subjects up to 72 hrs. Even though the HPC did not appear to be suppressed at some times following antihistamine due to the cutoffs chosen, some allergens that were positive before antihistamines were clearly suppressed and scored a negative result even with positive HPC. SPT results showing suppression also depended on the device. The Lincoln device had a 1.5-3 mm larger wheal than the Hollister-Stier device. Some allergens remained suppressed even when the HPC and other allergens returned to their original wheal size. This suggests that antihistamine suppression is not equal across allergens and may result in false negative diagnoses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".