Parents' estimate of food allergy prevalence and management in Italian school‐aged children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing prevalence of food allergy, few studies have assessed the prevalence of perceived food-induced symptoms among school-aged children. There is also a paucity of data on how children with food reactions are managed. We investigated the frequency and characteristics of perceived food reactions in school-aged children. METHODS: Children aged 5-14 years were included in this cross-sectional study. A standardized self-administered questionnaire on food reactions was handed out to 900 parents. RESULTS: We achieved a response rate of 69%. The lifetime prevalence of parental perceived allergic reactions to food was 10.5%; the point prevalence was 1.6%. Medical care included a call to a general practitioner in 54% of cases, self-management in 37%, an emergency call in 6%, and hospitalization in 3%. Antihistamines were administered in 45% of food reactions, topical steroids in 24%, oral or parenteral steroids in 16%, and epinephrine in 1.5%. In children who reported food reactions, skin prick tests for foods were performed in 54% of cases; the oral food challenge test was performed in 7.5%. CONCLUSION: Parent perception of food allergic disorders is common in school-aged children. Few children have undergone diagnostic tests to ascertain clinical food hypersensitivity. This is warranted to avoid unnecessarily restricted diets. Efforts should be made to train primary care physicians to manage food-allergic children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".