Occupational rhinitis caused by concurrent * sensitization to two different allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exposure to wheat flour and guar gum is a well-known cause of occupational respiratory allergies among workers in the food processing industry. To date, there have been no reports of occupational rhinitis (OR) caused concurrently by two different allergens present in the workplace. AIMS: To report a case of OR likely to be induced concurrently by exposure to wheat flour and guar gum in a mid-40s male employed in the food processing industry. METHODS: Allergy tests and nasal challenge tests were performed to investigate and confirm the diagnosis of OR. We discuss potential mechanisms involved in the observed dual sensitization. RESULTS: The patient showed positive responses to wheat and guar gum extracts on skin prick testing. The total IgE was 1680 kU/l (0-100 kU/l). The diagnosis of OR was confirmed by nasal challenge tests with wheat flour and guar gum on different days. In contrast to the control day, the challenge with flour and guar gum induced an immediate clinical reaction associated with a decrease in nasal volume measured by acoustic rhinometry. The patient was advised to avoid exposure to wheat and guar gum, which resulted in a gradual resolution of nasal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Co-sensitization and cross-reactivity are possible mechanisms involved in cases of concurrent sensitization to related and unrelated allergens in patients complaining of work-related rhinitis symptoms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".