MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999078574 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2019-232844

Anaphylaxis to goat/sheep’s milk in a 4-year-old boy tolerant to cow’s milk

2020· article· en· W2999078574 on OpenAlexaff
Pasquale Mulé, Sofianne Gabrielli, Julia Upton, Elissa M. Abrams, Moshe Ben‐Shoshan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnaphylaxisMilk allergyAllergyCow's milk allergyCow milkMilk substituteSheep milkFood allergyFood scienceImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune-mediated reactions to dairy products may vary depending on the mammalian source. We present a case of anaphylaxis to goat/sheep's milk with tolerance to cow's milk. A 4-year-old boy of Eastern European descent presented with gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms within minutes after eating a goat/sheep's milk-derived food product. The tryptase level measured 1 hour post initial symptoms and 1 month after the allergic reaction were 14.6 µg/L and 5.1 µg/L, respectively (norm: 0.0-13.5 µg/L), confirming the diagnosis of anaphylaxis. A skin prick test performed 1 month after the reaction was highly positive for goat/sheep's milk, but negative for cow's milk. Skin prick tests may establish a life-threatening goat/sheep's milk allergy. Goat/sheep's milk allergy should always be considered in cow's milk-tolerant patients who present with an allergic reaction to dairy products, or when undergoing/have completed of oral immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207