Disparities in rate, triggers, and management in pediatric and adult cases of suspected drug‐induced anaphylaxis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Data is sparse on drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) and there have not been studies assessing the differences in clinical characteristics and management of DIA between adults and children. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the percentage, diagnosis, and management of DIA among all anaphylaxis visits in three pediatric and one adult emergency departments (ED) across Canada. METHODS: Children presenting to the Montreal Children's Hospital (MCH), British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH), and Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences Center and adults presenting to Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur with anaphylaxis were recruited as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. A standardized data form documenting the reaction and management was completed and patients were followed annually to determine assessment by allergist and use of confirmatory tests. RESULTS: From June 2012 to May 2016, 51 children were recruited from the pediatric centers and 64 adults from the adult center with drug-induced anaphyalxis. More than half the cases were prospectively recruited. The percentage of DIA among all cases of anaphylaxis was similar in all three pediatric centers but higher in the adult center in Montreal. Most reactions in children were triggered by non-antibiotic drugs, and in adults, by antibiotics. The majority of adults and a third of children did not see an allergist after the initial reaction. In those that did see an allergist, diagnosis was established by either a skin test or an oral challenge in less than 20% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal disparities in rate, culprit, and management of DIA in children versus adults. Further, most cases of suspected drug allergy are not appropriately diagnosed. Guidelines to improve assessment and diagnosis of DIA are required.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".