MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780843928 · doi:10.1111/cea.13073

Welcome to 2018

2017· editorial· en· W2780843928 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Graham Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical & Experimental Allergy · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisExacerbationAsthmaAllergyFood allergyImmunologyAtopyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the first issue of 2018, Ali et al1 look at how we can identify pregnancies with a low risk of asthma exacerbation. Data from over a thousand pregnancies were analysed. They identified that a lack of exacerbations pre-pregnancy, no controller medication and clinically stable asthma were associated with less than a 1% chance of exacerbation. This allows clinicians to direct enhanced surveillance towards those that do have a significant risk of having an exacerbation. It is well known that atopic dermatitis and allergic sensitisation are associated with the development of allergic diseases.2, 3 The expression of these early life atopic manifestations varies between individuals. Dharma et al4 set out to determine whether these impact on the risk of developing future allergic diseases. They applied unsupervised latent class analysis to determine the different patterns of allergic sensitisation and atopic dermatitis in infants from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) Study. Five distinct patterns found were as follows: a large healthy group and then smaller groups with atopic dermatitis, inhalant sensitisation, transient sensitisation and persistent sensitisation (Figure 1). Each had a different risk of developing atopic diseases with the persistent sensitisation group perhaps the predictably most at risk. Questions remain, are these reproducible and what might drive the development of these groups? The number of components for common food allergens increases all the time.5 But do these components have any clinical meaning? Blankestijn et al6 have looked at whether Ara h 7 is useful in diagnosing peanut allergy. They compare it to Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 isoforms using sera from 40 peanut-tolerant and 40 peanut-allergic individuals based on food challenge (Figure 2). Ara h 7, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 have comparable utilities for diagnosing peanut allergy. Most individuals were co-sensitized to all three 2S albumins Ara h 2, 6 or 7, but some are only sensitized to one leading to the possibility of misdiagnosis when only one 2S albumin is used in a diagnostic algorithm.7

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.385 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical & Experimental AllergySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207