MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152058975 · doi:10.1289/ehp.5702

Food allergy: an overview.

2003· review· en· W2152058975 on OpenAlexaff
Rhoda Kagan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood allergyAllergyMedicineIngestionImmunoglobulin EContext (archaeology)AnaphylaxisImmunologyEnvironmental healthAntibodyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food allergy affects between 5% and 7.5% of children and between 1% and 2% of adults. The greater prevalence of food allergy in children reflects both the increased predisposition of children to develop food allergies and the development of immunologic tolerance to certain foods over time. Immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated food allergies can be classified as those that persist indefinitely and those that are predominantly transient. Although there is overlap between the two groups, certain foods are more likely than others to be tolerated in late childhood and adulthood. The diagnosis of food allergy rests with the detection of food-specific IgE in the context of a convincing history of type I hypersensitivity-mediated symptoms after ingestion of the suspected food or by eliciting IgE-mediated symptoms after controlled administration of the suspected food. Presently, the only available treatment of food allergies is dietary vigilance and administration of self-injectable epinephrine.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.014

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations105
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207