Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology annual scientific meeting 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Multiple animal antigens, spores and pollens were collected and identified from the Kuwaiti atmosphere.The role for these antigens in mediating allergic rhinitis for Kuwaiti residents needs to be evaluated.Objective: To investigate the causes (both indoors and outdoors) of allergic rhinitis for Kuwaiti residents.Method: This is a retrospective study of all positive skin tests that we obtained in our Allergy clinic in Mubarak Alkabeer Hospital in Kuwait, during the period between May 2013 and December 2015, from patients who presented with allergic rhinitis symptoms and/or signs.They underwent skin prick tests to a battery of common allergens (german cockroach, cat dander, dog dander, house dustmites mix, cladosporium, aspergillus mix, penicillium mix, alternaria, grass pollens mix, Russian thistle pollens, mugwort pollens, rough pigweed pollens, sorrel pollens, compositae pollens, olive pollens, and date palm pollens).A wheal of ≥3 mm was considered a positive skin test.Results: A total of 177 patients with rhinitis (90 females and 87 males) had positive test results to at least one allergen and were considered allergic.77.9% of the patients had positive results to Russian thistle pollens, 39.9% to cat dander, 29.9% to grass pollens mix, 22.6% to compositae pollens, 22.6% to mugwort pollens, 22% to house dust mites mix, 21.4% to olive pollens, 20.9% to German cockroach, 20.3% to dog dander, 18.1% to rough pigweed pollens, 15.8% to date palm pollens, and 12.4% to sorrel pollens, 14.7% to penicillium, 10.7% to cladosporium, 10.7% to aspergillus mix, and 4% to alternaria.Conclusion: Russian Thistle pollen is the commonest sensitization for Kuwaiti residents with allergic rhinitis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.215 | 0.113 |
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".