MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133733900 · doi:10.1080/19440049.2021.1881622

Occurrence and risk assessment of sesame as an allergen in selected Middle Eastern foods available in Montreal, Canada

2021· article· en· W3133733900 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph Touma, Sébastien La Vieille, Laurent Guillier, Virginie Barrère, Emilie Manny, Jérémie Théolier, Silvia Domínguez, Samuel Benrejeb Godefroy

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants Part A · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSesame seedAllergenSesame oilPopulationTobacco productToxicologyAllergyEnvironmental healthMedicineSesamumBiologyImmunologyRaw material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sesame allergy is a public health problem in many countries around the world. The purpose of this study is to determine the occurrence of sesame allergen in unlabelled or labelled free-sesame Middle Eastern foods with or without Precautionary Allergen Labelling (PAL) ‘may contain’ and estimate the risk incurred by the Canadian population allergic to sesame with a focus on products purchased in Middle Eastern grocery stores and bakeries in Montreal, Canada. A total of 571 samples were analysed to determine the level of sesame protein. Of the 571 samples analysed, 19% (109/571) contained sesame (results >LOQ) with concentrations of sesame proteins varying between 0.5 and 1,875 mg kg−1 and 35% (199/571) contained traces (a value between LOD and LOQ). Unpackaged products were found to present the highest proportion of sesame containing samples (36%). For packaged products, 16% (27/173) of samples with PAL and 3% (5/173) without PAL were found to contain sesame. A probabilistic approach was used to estimate the risk incurred by the Canadian consumers allergic to sesame. Our evaluation estimated that 33 to 308 allergic reactions may occur out of 10 000 individuals ingesting one type of bakery product contaminated at a level of 0.6–74 mg kg−1 sesame proteins. The incidence and level of sesame cross-contact reported in this study demonstrate that sesame allergic consumers could react if they ignore the precautionary allergen statements on product labels. Attention to sesame as a potential cross-contact agent and as a priority allergen calls for better management, given the growing interest in this ingredient to be included in food formulations. Enhanced risk management efforts must be coupled with targeted risk communication covering both producers and consumers as to the need to adopt and an approach for the application of precautionary allergen labelling based on risk.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & Contaminants Part ASame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207