Practical guide to skin prick tests in allergy to aeroallergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To cite this article: Bousquet J, Heinzerling L, Bachert C, Papadopoulos NG, Bousquet PJ, Burney PG, Canonica GW, Carlsen KH, Cox L, Haahtela T, Lodrup Carlsen KC, Price D, Samolinski B, Simons FER, Wickman M, Annesi‐Maesano I, Baena‐Cagnani CE, Bergmann KC, Bindslev‐Jensen C, Casale TB, Chiriac A, Cruz AA, Dubakiene R, Durham SR, Fokkens WJ, Gerth‐van‐Wijk R, Kalayci O, Kowalski ML, Mari A, Mullol J, Nazamova‐Baranova L, O’Hehir RE, Ohta K, Panzner P, Passalacqua G, Ring J, Rogala B, Romano A, Ryan D, Schmid‐Grendelmeier P, Todo‐Bom A, Valenta R, Woehrl S, Yusuf OM, Zuberbier T, Demoly P. Practical guide to skin prick tests in allergy to aeroallergens. Allergy 2012; 67 : 18–24. Abstract This pocket guide is the result of a consensus reached between members of the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA 2 LEN) and Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA). The aim of the current pocket guide is to offer a comprehensive set of recommendations on the use of skin prick tests in allergic rhinitis–conjunctivitis and asthma in daily practice. This pocket guide is meant to give simple answers to the most frequent questions raised by practitioners in Europe, including ‘practicing allergists’, general practitioners and any other physicians with special interest in the management of allergic diseases. It is not a long or detailed scientific review of the topic. However, the recommendations in this pocket guide were compiled following an in‐depth review of existing guidelines and publications, including the 1993 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper, the 2001 ARIA document and the ARIA update 2008 (prepared in collaboration with GA 2 LEN). The recommendations cover skin test methodology and interpretation, allergen extracts to be used, as well as indications in a variety of settings including paediatrics and developing countries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.082 |
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".