MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136356086 · doi:10.1186/1710-1492-3-4-134

Food-Dependent Exercise-Induced Anaphylaxis: A Case Related to Chickpea Ingestion and Review

2007· article· en· W2136356086 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chet G. Wong, Sean R. Mace

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngestionAnaphylaxisMedicineFood scienceInternal medicineAllergyImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA) is recognized as a distinct category of exercise-induced anaphylaxis (EIA) but is very likely underdiagnosed. This report describes a 41-year-old Indian woman who experienced two separate episodes of anaphylaxis while dancing after she had eaten chickpea-containing foods. The chickpea, a small legume, is a staple ingredient in culinary traditions from around the world, especially in India, the Middle East, and North Africa. Chickpea-containing dishes are also becoming more widespread in the Western world with the growing popularity of South Asian, Middle Eastern, and African cuisines. It is important to consider FDEIA in cases of unexplained anaphylaxis as reactions can occur several hours after ingesting the culprit food(s). Furthermore, no reaction occurs if a sensitized individual eats the culprit food(s) without exercising afterward; therefore, triggering foods can easily be overlooked. Current ideas on the pathophysiology, predisposing factors, workup, and treatment of FDEIA are also summarized here.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207