Dust mite ingestion-associated, exercise-induced anaphylaxis: a case report and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Oral mite anaphylaxis (OMA) is a condition characterized by severe allergic reactions after ingesting food containing dust mite-contaminated flour. Physical exertion is recognized as a common trigger factor inducing anaphylaxis. The association of OMA with exercise-induced anaphylaxis has rarely been reported. Case presentation We report a 29-year-old Thai woman who had dust mite ingestion-associated, exercise-induced anaphylaxis who tolerated the same bag of contaminated flour without exercise. A sample of contaminated cooking flour was examined under a light microscope. Living mites, Dermatophagoides farinae , were detected by a medical entomologist based on the morphology. We performed skin test to both mite-contaminated and newly opened Gogi® cooking flour, common aeroallergens, food allergens, and all other ingredients in the fried coconut rice cake 5 weeks after the anaphylactic episode. Specific IgE tests, using ImmunoCAP were also performed. Conclusions Dust mite ingestion-associated, exercise-induced anaphylaxis may be misdiagnosed as wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis and should be suspected in patients with anaphylaxis linked to food intake and exercise, but who have no apparent evidence to the index food ingredients on allergy workup.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".