MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088907267 · doi:10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100416

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3088907267 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Allergy Organization Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnaphylaxisMeta-analysisAdverse effectPlaceboRelative riskAllergyPeanut allergyInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialFood allergyConfidence intervalImmunologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of OIT versus allergen avoidance/placebo (no OIT) for peanut allergy. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, 中国知网/CNKI, ICTRP, EMA, and FDA databases from inception to December 6, 2018 for randomised trials comparing OIT versus no OIT for peanut allergy. We screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic/adverse reactions, epinephrine use and quality of life (QoL), meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. PROSPERO CRD42019117930 12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8.7 years [IQR 5.9-11.2]) showed that OIT versus no OIT increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3.26 [95%CI:1.86-5.73], I2=0%, risk difference [RD]=+16.0%, high-certainty), frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.94 [95%CI:1.73-5.01], I2=0%, RD=+13.8%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2.21 [95%CI:1.27-3.83], I2=0%, RD=+4.5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (pinteraction=0.92). OIT increased serious adverse events (RR 1.92 [95%CI:1.00-3.66], I2=0%, RD=+5.7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (e.g. vomiting, RR 1.79 [95%CI:1.35-2.38], I2=0%, RD=+14.7%, high-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with OIT (RR 12.42 [95%CI:6.82-22.61], I2=0%, RD=+36.5%, high-certainty). QoL was not different between groups (RR 1.14 [95%CI:0.66-1.99], I2=0%, RD=+0.03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. In patients with peanut allergy, there is high-certainty evidence that current peanut OIT regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance/placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. These data support the need for safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomized trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.285 · 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