Anaphylaxis in laboratory workers because of rodent handling: two case reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Occupational allergy to rodents among laboratory animal workers is common. Most patients generally experience allergic symptoms after the first few years of work. Associated symptoms are usually mild, such as rhinoconjunctivits, urticaria, and asthma. Anaphylaxis, although rare, could be severe and life threatening. METHODS: We have described in this study two cases of laboratory workers that developed skin and respiratory reactions following laboratory rat and mouse bites, consistent with anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Skin testing was found positive for rat epithelium in the patient with anaphylaxis due to rat bite. Elevated levels of specific IgE antibodies against rat and mouse epitheliums were also detected in both the patients. CONCLUSION: These cases illustrate a severe hypersensitivity reaction that could potentially occur in occupational workers that are in close contact with rodents. Reduction of allergen exposure, regular screening, and job modification could be beneficial for affected individuals. Health care workers should be made aware that anaphylaxis could be a serious consequence of laboratory animal bites, particularly in those already sensitized.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| 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".