MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Epidemiology of life‐threatening and lethal anaphylaxis: a review

2005· review· en· W2109311654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. A. Moneret‐Vautrin, M. Morisset, J. Flabbée, É. Beaudouin, G. Kanny

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaphylaxisMedicineEpidemiologyAllergyMedical prescriptionFood allergyEtiologyRelative riskDiseaseImmunologyIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicineConfidence intervalPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe anaphylaxis is a systemic reaction affecting two or more organs or systems and is due to the release of active mediators from mast cells and basophils. A four-grade classification routinely places 'severe' anaphylaxis in grades 3 and 4 (death could be graded as grade 5). Studies are underway to determine the prevalence of severe and lethal anaphylaxis in different populations and the relative frequencies of food, drug, latex and Hymenoptera anaphylaxis. These studies will also analyse the risk arising from the lack of preventive measures applied in schools (personalized management protocols) and from the insufficient use of self-injected adrenalin. Allergy-related conditions may account for 0.2-1% of emergency consultations. Severe anaphylaxis affects 1-3 per 10 000 people, but for the United States and Australia figures are even higher. It is estimated to cause death in 0.65-2% of patients, i.e. 1-3 per million people. An increased prevalence has been revealed by monitoring hospitalized populations by reference to the international classification of disease (ICD) codes. The relative frequency of aetiological factors of allergy (food, drugs, insects and latex) varies in different studies. Food, drug and Hymenoptera allergies are potentially lethal. The risk of food-mediated anaphylaxis can be assessed from the number of personalized management protocols in French schools: 0.065%. Another means of assessment may be the rate of adrenalin prescriptions. However, an overestimation of the anaphylaxis risk may result from this method (0.95% of Canadian children). Data from the literature leads to several possibilities. First, a definition of severe anaphylaxis should be agreed. Secondly, prospective, multicentre enquiries, using ICD codes, should be implemented. Moreover, the high number of anaphylaxis cases for which the aetiology is not identified, and the variation in aetiology in the published series, indicate that a closer cooperation between emergency specialists and allergists is essential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations390
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207