MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2965147211 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxz098

Should we continue to counsel families to use hydrolyzed formulas as a means of allergy prevention in high-risk infants?

2019· article· en· W2965147211 on OpenAlexaffabout
Megan Burke, Edmond S. Chan, Elissa M. Abrams

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesAimmune Therapeutics
KeywordsMedicineBreastfeedingAtopic dermatitisAllergyInfant formulaMilk allergyFood allergyCow's milk allergyPosition statementPediatricsFamily medicineEnvironmental healthDermatologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of food allergy in North America is high, and has increased over time. As a result, focus has shifted from treatment to allergy prevention. Previous studies have suggested that hydrolyzed formula may prevent atopic dermatitis in high-risk infants. As a result, multiple international guidelines including the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) position statement on allergy prevention recommend the use of hydrolyzed formula as a means of allergy prevention in mothers who are not breastfeeding or using donor breastmilk. However, a recent systematic review has not supported an association between use of hydrolyzed formula and allergy prevention. In addition, studies are emerging supporting the use of early and regular cow's milk formula as a means of cow's milk allergy prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.288 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research→French-language works237,207→