MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048596223 · doi:10.1186/s13223-020-00471-9

Pollen allergen skin test and specific IgE reactivity among Filipinos: a community-based study

2020· article· en· W3048596223 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maureen Sabit, Cecil Wong, Agnes Andaya, John Donnie Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenSensitizationImmunologyImmunoglobulin EAllergenMedicineBiologyBotanyAllergyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Despite the clinical importance of pollen allergens among Filipinos, few studies delve into the sensitization profiles of Filipinos against pollen allergens. This study determined the sensitization profile of Filipinos to pollen using skin prick test (SPT) and pollen-specific ELISA. Methods Pollen from fifteen selected plant sources was collected and extracted for use in sensitization tests. Volunteers were interviewed for their clinical history prior to blood sampling and SPT. The blood samples collected were assessed using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). Results The best panel of pollen allergens for the skin prick test was Mangifera indica (64%), Acacia auriculiformis (28%), Mimosa spp. (25%) Amaranthus spinosus (22%), Lantana camara (20%), Pilea microphylla (16%) and Dichanthium aristatum (15%). Young adults had more sensitizations to pollen than among early childhood and elderly. There were more allergic subjects that have rhinitis (61%) than asthma (42%) and atopic dermatitis (35%). Pollen-specific IgE levels show low percent reactivity as compared to the skin test with Cocos nucifera obtaining the highest IgE reactivity (21%). Conclusions Pollen allergens from both arboreal and herbaceous plants used in this study yielded positive reactivities for both skin tests and specific IgE tests.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207