ASCIA‐P44: ASSESSING THE UTILITY OF THE BASOPHIL ACTIVATION TEST FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF SUSPECTED ANAESTHETIC OR ANTIBIOTIC ALLERGY IN A WESTERN AUSTRALIAN COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a significant health and economic burden to individuals and the health system for those with a drug allergy label (DAL), as has been shown for antibiotic allergies. The majority of these patients are not allergic and will tolerate the suspected culprit drugs after appropriate assessment (“de-labelling”).The basophil activation test (BAT) potentially could help confirm or de-label drug allergy without the need for oral challenge or intradermal testing. BAT testing (Buehlmann flow CAST kit®) was performed with culprit allergen on whole blood from individuals who experienced pre or intra operative anaphylaxis and healthy controls. BAT results were compared between patients and controls and with patient intradermal testing. 9 individuals were tested for cephazolin allergy, 2 for rocuronium and 2 for suxamethonium. 12 controls were tested by BAT to cephazolin, 2 for rocuronium and suxamethonium. Mast cell tryptase (MCT) results were also collected. Stimulation and no stimulation controls were performed on all individuals. Of 4 patients with positive intradermal testing to cephazolin, 2 were positive for BAT, 1 patient was BAT negative and had elevated MCT which did not normalise. There was complete agreement for 2 patients (1 positive, 1 negative) tested for rocuronium and suxamethonium. The BAT was negative in 11 of 12 controls for cephazolin and 2 of 2 for rocuronium and suxamethonium. One control was positive for cephazolin for the BAT, intradermal testing has not yet been performed on this individual. There was agreement with intradermal testing in 71% of individuals for cephazolin, and complete agreement between the BAT and intradermal testing for rocuronium and suxamethonium. The BAT assay fits into the diagnostic laboratory workflow and a positive BAT would remove the need for an individual to be recalled for confirmatory intradermal testing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".