Predictive value of IgE/IgG4 antibody ratio in children with egg allergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of specific IgG4 antibodies to hen's egg white and determine their utility as a marker for the outcome of oral challenge test in children sensitized to hen's egg METHODS: The hen's egg oral food challenge test was performed in 105 sensitized children without atopic dermatitis, and the titers of egg white-specific immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) and immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies were measured. To set the cut-off values of IgG4, IgE, and the IgE/IgG4 ratio for predicting positive results in oral challenges, receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and the area under the curves (AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty-four of 105 oral challenges with whole eggs were assessed as positive. The AUC for IgE, IgG4, and IgE/IgG4 for the prediction of positive results were 0.609, 0.724, and 0.847, respectively. Thus, the IgE/IgG4 ratio generated significantly higher specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (%), and negative predictive value (%) than the individual IgE and IgG4. The negative predictive value of the IgE/IgG4 ratio was 90% at a value of 1. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the egg white-specific serum IgE/IgG4 ratio is important for predicting reactivity to egg during food challenges.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".