Allergy to sunflower seed and sunflower butter as proposed vehicle for sensitization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized that household exposure to allergenic proteins via an impaired skin barrier, such as atopic dermatitis, may contribute to the development of IgE sensitization. Household presence of peanut is a risk factor for the development of peanut allergy in children. Sunflower seed butter is a peanut-free alternative to peanut butter, and sunflower seed allergy is an uncommon but reported entity. CASE PRESENTATION: A 3 year old boy presented with oral discomfort that developed almost immediately after he ate sunflower seeds for the first time. He was given a dose of diphenhydramine. Subsequently he vomited, and his symptoms gradually resolved. A similar episode occurred to a commercial snack made with sunflower seed butter. Skin prick testing demonstrated a large positive (10 mm wheal) wheal-and-flare response to a slurry of fresh sunflower seed within 3-4 minutes associated with severe pruritus. This child has an older sibling with confirmed peanut allergy (PNA). After the PNA diagnosis was made, the family home became peanut-free. In lieu of peanut butter, sunflower butter was purchased and eaten frequently by family members, but not by the child reported herein. Subsequent to the episodes above, the child ate a bread roll with visible poppy seeds and developed itchy throat, dyspnea, and urticaria. Epicutaneous skin testing elicited a >10 mm wheal size within 3-4 minutes in response to a slurry of whole poppy seeds and 8 mm to fresh pumpkin seed, which had never been consumed. CONCLUSIONS: A case of sunflower allergy in the context of household consumption of sunflower butter has not yet been reported. We suggest that homes which are intentionally peanut-safe may provide an environment whereby infants with impaired skin barrier are at increased risk of allergy to alternative "butter" products being used, via cutaneous exposure to these products preceding oral introduction to the child.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".