Introduction of peanuts in younger siblings of children with peanut allergy: a prospective, double‐blinded assessment of risk, of diagnostic tests, and an analysis of patient preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of peanut allergy in younger siblings of children with peanut allergy has been reported between 7% and 8.5%, but the anaphylactic risk at the time of introduction is currently unknown, which limits our ability to best counsel parents on this issue. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of anaphylaxis and working parameters of allergy testing in this context. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-four peanut-naïve younger siblings of peanut-allergic children underwent double-blinded skin testing, followed by parent-led peanut introduction. Questionnaires were dispensed to parents to investigate preferences with regard to peanut introduction in this subgroup. RESULTS: Eight participants (5.2%) presented unequivocal IgE-mediated reactions to peanut upon introduction, including five anaphylaxes. These participants were significantly older compared to the rest of the cohort (median 4.0 vs 1.9 years, P = 0.04). The negative predictive value of skin prick test with peanut extract and peanut butter and of specific IgE was 99%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Six peanut-tolerant participants had positive peanut allergy tests. The option of introducing at home without prior skin testing was associated with high levels of anxiety (median 8.4 on 10-point Likert scale) when compared to supervised introduction (median 3.8, P < 0.0001) or home introduction after negative skin test (median 4.3, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is an increased risk of anaphylaxis upon peanut introduction in siblings of children with peanut allergy, and parents are reluctant to introduce at home without testing. Allergy testing prior to introduction is negative in over 90% of cases and carries a high negative predictive value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".