First-reported pediatric cases of American ginseng anaphylaxis and allergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (American ginseng). Although cases of allergy due to Korean ginseng have been reported in adults, there are no reported cases of allergy to American ginseng, and no reported cases of ginseng allergy in pediatric patients. CASE PRESENTATION: We present two unique cases of pediatric patients with suspected allergic reactions to American ginseng. The first patient is a 6-year-old girl who presented to the emergency department in anaphylaxis (urticaria and respiratory symptoms) minutes after inhaling powdered American ginseng. There was evidence of sensitization to American ginseng on skin prick testing (SPT) (13 × 12 mm wheal) and evidence of allergy to American ginseng on basophil activation testing, with a dose-dependent increase in expression of CD63 on basophils in response to American ginseng extract. The second patient is a 3-year-old boy who presented with recurrent allergic conjunctivitis upon exposure to aerosolized powdered ginseng, with evidence of sensitization to American ginseng on SPT (13 × 7 mm wheal), but with no evidence of IgE-mediated allergic reaction during oral challenge with American ginseng powder. CONCLUSIONS: These cases highlight two different allergic responses to American ginseng in pediatric patients. To our knowledge, these are the first reported cases of allergy to American ginseng, in addition to the first reported cases of allergy to ginseng in pediatric patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".