Selective cannabis strain allergy in a patient presenting with a local allergic reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is growing domestically due to recent legalization in many jurisdictions. There are two main species of cannabis, Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica, and thousands of different commercially available cannabis strains. Although there are multiple reports of cannabis allergy in the literature, to our knowledge, there is no prior published report of selective cannabis strain allergy. CASE PRESENTATION: A 31-year-old male was referred for allergy assessment due to several episodes of localized pruritus and erythema after direct contact with various strains of cannabis. He had noted that the severity of his reaction appeared to be strain dependent. He developed a severe local reaction involving bilateral periorbital edema shortly after coming into direct contact with one particular strain of cannabis. He denied any adverse symptoms after inhalation of cannabis. Fresh skin prick testing was performed to various strains of cannabis and had positive testing to the three of the five tested strains. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this is the first reported case of selective cannabis strain allergy based on patient history and skin prick testing. This case report outlines the variability in different strains of cannabis and stresses the importance of further research into cannabis allergen identification. Multiple cannabis allergens should be included and incorporated into commercial extracts when they become routinely available.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".