MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143973650 · doi:10.1186/1710-1492-10-s1-a28

Diagnostic yield of allergy testing in Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis: a 10 year experience at a tertiary care centre

2014· article· en· W2143973650 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Perri R. Tutelman, Jason Ohayon, Jefferson Terry, Mary Sherlock

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEosinophilic esophagitisMedicineExacerbationAllergyTertiary careFood allergyDermatologyNatural historyCohortAtopyPediatricsDiseaseInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) is a disease in children characterized by esophageal dysfunction and eosinophilic infiltration [ 1 ]. Patients frequently present with an atopic history; therefore, allergy testing by both skin prick and food patch testing are often performed. However, the utility of allergy testing remains unclear [ 1 , 3 ]. Treatment with topical corticosteroids may be needed for clinical and histologic improvement if allergic triggers are not identified [ 1 , 2 ]. However, the natural history of EoE suggests that this condition is chronic and may recur when corticosteroids are withdrawn [ 2 ]. Therefore, treatment with dietary/aeroallergen avoidance is preferable to reduce the need for oral corticosteroids, while preventing exacerbation of EoE [ 3 ]. This study aims to describe the atopic characteristics of a pediatric cohort with EoE over a 10 year period at a tertiary care center. All children (< 18 years) who had esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy proven EoE (15+ eosinophils per high power field) at McMaster Children’s Hospital between January 2003 and December 2012 were identified and their medical records reviewed. Data pertaining to patient demographics, symptoms at diagnosis, atopic history, endoscopic and histologic findings, results of allergy testing (skin prick, patch and immunoCAP) and treatment outcomes were extracted. A total of 96 cases were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 13.2 years (IQR=8.6-15.7), and 72 of the identified cases were male (74.2%). Seventy-four of 91 (81%) and 62 of 79 (78%) patients with data available reported a history of personal and family atopy, respectively. Six patients (7%) had a first degree family member diagnosed with EoE. Patients who reported a history of food allergy were significantly more likely to present with a food bolus impaction at diagnosis (p=0.035, OR=3.056). Sixty-nine patients underwent allergy testing as part of a standard EoE workup, of which, 60 (87.0%) had a positive test result. Ten (14.5%) patients who had identifiable allergies were positive only to environmental allergens. The top identified food and environmental allergens were recorded by allergy test type (Figs 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ). (N=69) underwent skin prick testing N=69 underwent skin prick testing N=35 underwent patch testing N=14 underwent ImmunoCAP testing. Pediatric EoE is considered to be an allergic disease with both environmental and food allergen triggers in many patients. A majority of patients present with a history of atopy and show positive allergy test results to both foods and aeroallergens. Both environmental and food allergen elimination should be considered a part of a therapeutic program. Identification of offending allergens by allergy skin and patch testing can be an important factor in guiding clinical decision making.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207