Peanut allergy: a mouse model comparison (HYP4P.309)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Peanut induced anaphylaxis often results in a bi-phasic response, associated with a second anaphylaxis once current treatment interventions have been removed. Previous reports have suggested that this response is associated with elevated levels of platelet activating factor. Our studies have focused on refining the murine model of peanut anaphylaxis with the hypothesis that we can generate a model that recapitulates the anaphylactic response to peanuts. We used BALB/c and C3H/HeJ mice (N=20 for each study) mice were sensitized weekly for 6 weeks with crude peanut extract in cholera toxin. Mice were then grouped for crude peanut extract or saline challenge by intra-peritoneal injection. In all mice, temperatures and clinical scores were accessed both early post injection as well as 2 hours later. Serum, lungs, spleen, and liver were stored from all animals for future studies. The BALB/c strain had a mean temperature change from baseline of 0.2 C⁰ for the controls initial post IP versus the 1.89 C⁰ for the challenged mice. The C3H/HeJ strain had a mean temperature change from baseline of 0.1 C⁰ for the controls at the initial post IP versus the 4.2 C⁰ change for the challenged mice. Similar results were noted at the 2 hour mark with the C3H/HeJ strain with the greater temperature change. Both strains had notable changes in clinical scores between the control and challenge groups. This was more pronounced in the C3H/HeJ mice both clinically and by temperature measurement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".