Anaphylaxis after jellyfish ingestion with no history of stings: a pediatric case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Jellyfish stings are known to induce allergic skin reactions; however, case reports of anaphylaxis after jellyfish ingestion have been increasing, especially in Asian countries. Some cases of anaphylaxis after jellyfish ingestion have been reported in patients with a previous history of frequent jellyfish stings. Herein, we report a pediatric patient with anaphylaxis after jellyfish ingestion with no history of jellyfish stings. CASE PRESENTATION: A 14-year-old girl developed two episodes of anaphylaxis, and her diet diaries revealed that edible jellyfish was common to the meals in both the anaphylaxis events. A skin prick test using five types of edible jellyfish products revealed a positive reaction to some jellyfish, and anaphylaxis was observed after the ingestion of jellyfish in an oral food challenge test. She had no history of jellyfish stings or frequent swimming in the ocean. The basophil activation test showed positive results on stimulation with extracts from various types of edible jellyfish. We observed serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) reactivity to purified jellyfish collagen and jellyfish acid-soluble extracts. Moreover, immunoblotting analysis showed IgE reactivity to two bands at approximately 40 and 70 kDa using purified jellyfish collagen, which may be a causative antigen. CONCLUSIONS: Edible salted jellyfish can be one of the causative foods of anaphylaxis. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of anaphylactic reactions due to jellyfish ingestion even without a history of jellyfish stings.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".