Case 1: A 12-year-old girl with food allergies and an acute asthma exacerbation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 12-year-old girl with a history of asthma presented to the emergency department with a three-day history of increased work of breathing, cough and wheezing. She reported no clear trigger for her respiratory symptoms, although she had noted some symptoms of a mild upper respiratory tract infection. With this episode, the patient had been using a short-acting bronchodilator more frequently than she had in the past, without the expected resolution of symptoms. On the day of presentation, the patient awoke feeling ‘suffocated’ and her mother noted her lips to be blue. In the emergency department, her oxygen saturation was 85% and her respiratory rate was 40 breaths/min. She had significantly increased work of breathing and poor air entry bilaterally to both lung bases, with wheezing in the upper lung zones. She was treated with salbutamol/ipratropium and received intravenous steroids and magnesium sulfate. Her chest x-ray showed hyperinflation and no focal findings. Her medical history revealed that she was followed by a respirologist for her asthma, had good medication adherence and had not experienced a significant exacerbation for six months. She also had a history of wheezing, dyspnea and pruritis with exposure to peanuts, chickpeas and lentils; she had been prescribed an injectible epinephrine device for this. However, her device had expired at the time of presentation. In the past, her wheezing episodes had been seasonal and related to exposure to grass and pollens; this presentation occurred during the winter. Further history revealed the probable cause of her presentation. Although reluctant to disclose the information, our patient later revealed that she had been experiencing significant bullying at school, which was primarily related to her food allergies. Three days before her admission, classmates had smeared peanut butter on one of her schoolbooks. She developed pruritis immediately after opening the book and she started wheezing and coughing later that day. This event followed several months of being taunted with peanut products at school. The patient was experiencing low mood and reported new symptoms of anxiety related to school. The review of systems was otherwise negative, with no substance use. The patient's asthma exacerbation resolved with conventional asthma treatment. Her pulmonary function tests were nonconcerning (forced expiratory volume in 1 s 94% and 99% of predicted) after her recovery. The trigger for her asthma exacerbation was likely multifactorial, related to exposure to the food allergen as well as the upper respiratory infection. A psychologist was consulted to assess the symptoms of anxiety and depression that had occurred as a result of the bullying. During the hospitalization, the medical team contacted the patient's school to provide education on allergy bullying, treatment of severe allergic reactions and its potential for life-threatening reactions with exposure to allergens. The medical team also recommended community resources for further education of students and staff about allergy bullying and its prevention. Allergy bullying is a form of bullying with potentially severe medical outcomes. In recent years, it has gained increasing notoriety in schools and in the media. Population-based studies have shown that 20% to 35% of children with allergies experience bullying. In many cases (31% in one recent study [1]), this bullying is related directly to the food allergy. From a medical perspective, there are little published data regarding allergy bullying, and many health care providers may not be aware of the issue. Allergy bullying can include teasing a child about their allergy, throwing food at a child, or even forcing them to touch or eat allergenic foods. Most episodes of allergy bullying occur at school, and can include episodes perpetrated by teachers and/or staff (2). Allergy bullying can lead to allergic reactions, which may be mild or severe (eg, urticaria, wheezing, anaphylaxis), but may also lead to negative emotional consequences (sadness, depression) (2) and an overall decrease in quality of life measures (1). Adolescents commonly resist using medical devices, such as injectible epinephrine devices, and bullying may be a contributing factor for this (3). Attempting to conceal symptoms in a bullying situation may place children at risk for a worse outcome. Physicians can play a key role in detecting allergy bullying and its health consequences. In many cases, children have not discussed this issue with their parents (1). Given the prevalence of bullying, its potential to lead to severe harm, including death, and the lack of awareness of this issue, clinicians should specifically ask about bullying in all children and teens with allergies. Physicians can also work with families and schools to support these children, educate their peers and school staff, and help prevent negative health outcomes from allergy bullying. www.anaphylaxis.ca − A national charity that aims to inform, support, educate and advocate for the needs of individuals and families living with anaphylaxis, and to support and participate in research. This website includes education modules for schools and links to local support groups throughout Canada. www.whyriskit.ca/pages/en/live/bullying.php − A website for teenagers with food allergies; includes a segment that addresses food bullying. www.foodallergy.org − Contains numerous resources for children and their families, including a significant discussion on bullying and ways to prevent it. Allergy bullying is common but is often unrecognized as a factor in clinical presentations of allergic reactions. Physicians should make a point of asking about bullying in patients with allergies and become familiar with resources for dealing with allergy bullying. Physicians can play roles as advocates, educators and collaborators with the school system to help make the school environment safer for children with allergies who may be at risk for allergy bullying.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".