MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157105512 · doi:10.1586/1744666x.2014.914851

Recommendations for the management of food allergies in a preschool/childcare setting and prevention of anaphylaxis

2014· review· en· W2157105512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lara S. Ford, Paul Turner, Dianne E. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Immunology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsLegislationMedicineFood allergyEnvironmental healthAnaphylaxisAllergyLegislatureScope (computer science)Family medicinePediatricsImmunologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food allergy and anaphylaxis occur most commonly in children under five, the majority of whom attend preschool and early childcare. Children under five differ significantly from school-aged children, as do their care environments, yet specific strategies for managing food allergies in early childcare settings are generally lacking in existing guidelines and legislation. In this review, we outline the scope of the problem, the unique challenges encountered in the preschool environment and existing policy and legislation in Australia, the US, Canada and the UK. We outline the management guidelines and resources available from specialist societies, and the evidence base for specific management strategies including voluntary versus legislative approaches, staff training and education, banning of foods, and availability of multiple and generic adrenaline auto-injectors. We call for greater uniformity and consistency of policy in regards to the recognition and management of infants and children with food allergy in the preschool environment and specific programmes and policies tailored to this environment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical ImmunologySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207