Development of Transient Peanut Allergy Following Lung Transplantation: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 47-year-old woman underwent bilateral lung transplantation for nonspecific interstitial pneumonitis and received donor lungs from a 12-year-old patient with a known peanut allergy. Post-transplant, the patient experienced four anaphylaxis-like reactions. A skin prick test to peanut was initially positive; however, it steadily declined over serial assessments and reverted to negative one year post-transplant. The patient subsequently had a negative oral peanut challenge. Transfer of food allergy post-transplantation is theorized to occur via transfer of donor B lymphocytes producing peanut-specific immunoglobulin E into the circulation of the recipient. An alternate mechanism proposes passive transfer of immunoglobulin E-sensitized mast cells and⁄or basophils within the transplanted tissue that subsequently migrate into recipient tissues. The gradual decline in the magnitude of the peanut skin prick test and its return to negative over the course of one year supports the gradual depletion of sensitized cells in the recipient (B lymphocytes and, possibly, mast cells), and supports the initial passive transfer of sensitized cells from donor tissue during transplantation. This should be considered when donor organs are obtained from allergic individuals.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".