Prevalence of allergic sensitization to Russian thistle in Kingston and the South-eastern Ontario catchment area; a retrospective chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Russian thistle has only recently been identified as a potentially clinically important allergen. In the third phase of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys conducted in the USA (1988 to1994) over 15% of tested individuals had positive skin-test responses to this extract. The rate of skin test positivity to Russian thistle in Canada is unknown. To determine the prevalence of skin test positivity to Russian Thistle in patients from Kingston and the Southeastern Ontario catchment area, and the possible clinical significance of the same. A retrospective chart review was performed to document the rate of sensitization amongst tested patients to Russian thistle extract (Hollister-Steir). Only patients with appropriate histamine responses were included. We collected demographic data in addition to the presence/absence of relevant clinical symptoms. Of 410 charts reviewed, 170 underwent skin testing to Russian thistle. Of these, 17(10%) were positive. Of the test-positive cohort, 47% (8/17) had symptoms that correlated seasonally with the predominant Russian thistle pollen season (August-October). The mean age of skin-test positive individuals was 35.2 years. 82% and 52.9% of these had concomitant positive skin tests to ragweed and birch, respectively, allergens with known cross-reactivity. This preliminary evaluation suggests that the prevalence of skin test positivity to Russian thistle in the studied area is approximately 10%, with about half of these individuals reporting correlative seasonal symptoms. Including Russian thistle in routine skin testing panel may better establish the clinical significance of this environmental allergen. This study was approved by the Queen’s University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board, with no financial interest or funding provided.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".