A rare case of anaphylaxis to Indian jujube (Ziziphus Mauritiana Lam)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ) is a sweet fruit from a tree native to tropical and subtropical regions of Asia and India. A few case reports have implicated Indian jujube to cause latex-fruit syndrome. We present the first case of an anaphylactic reaction to this fruit in a patient with no latex allergy. CASE PRESENTATION: A 55-year-old male was referred to the Outpatient Allergy Clinic at Queen's University for evaluation of anaphylaxis caused by ingestion of Indian jujube. He presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with scalp pruritus, dyspnea and generalized urticaria, which occurred two hours after he had consumed a homemade candied fruit cocktail consisting of Indian jujube, water, Thai and Indian sweetener. In the ED, he was treated with epinephrine, intravenous diphenhydramine and steroids. He did not have any previous history of environmental or food allergies but had consumed this fruit frequently since childhood. In clinic, he underwent skin-prick testing with a saline slurry of candied jujube, which resulted in a positive wheal and flare response with appropriate controls. On subsequent visit, skin-prick tests were performed with saline slurries of the Thai and Indian sweetener used to make the cocktail. Both tests were negative when applied to a healthy volunteer. Skin-prick testing to latex allergen and latex specific IgE were both negative. He was diagnosed with an IgE-mediated anaphylactic reaction to the Indian jujube fruit. He was advised to avoid consumption of Indian jujubes and carry an epinephrine autoinjector. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis secondary to Indian jujube ingestion is an extremely rare phenomenon in patients without a latex allergy. A possible allergy to Indian jujube should be taken into consideration when working up anaphylaxis, especially in patient of Asian and Indian descent who have ceased regular consumption of the fruit.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".