Allergic rhinitis, allergic contact dermatitis and disease comorbidity belong to separate entities with distinct composition of T-cell subsets, cytokines, immunoglobulins and autoantibodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are prevalent allergic diseases and have significant impacts on patients' daily life. Despite many studies on AR or ACD have been conducted separately, little is known about the immune responses in patients of AR combined with ACD and the interplay between AR and ACD. Our study compared various aspects of immune elements in patients with AR or/and ACD, aiming to characterize the immune responses in AR, ACD, and AR combined with ACD. METHODS: A total of 57 patients diagnosed with AR or/and ACD and 28 healthy volunteers were included. AR patients were further divided into seasonal AR (SAR) and perennial AR (PAR). All subjects' blood samples were taken to assess the concentration of immunoglobulins, complement C3, C4, autoantibodies and cytokines in serum by immunoturbidimetry, ELISA or Luminex200 platform. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were subjected to the analysis of lymphocyte subpopulations by flow cytometry. RESULTS: It indicated that AR disease caused elevated levels of IgE, IgA, IgG, IgG4, as well as IL-4, IL-15, IL-8 and IL-6 in serum. AR patients possessed a decreased CD4/CD8 ratio and an increased proportion of memory CD4 + T-cell subset, with a skewed Th2 response and an enhanced CD8 + T-cell activation. Compared with patients with sole AR or ACD condition, AR + ACD patients presented with a significantly increased proportion of memory CD8 + T-cell subset and were prone to autoimmune disorders as indicated by the increased autoantibodies. The immune elements in patients with ACD only were least affected compared with those in other conditions. Additionally, seasonal or perennial AR patients exhibited different cytokine profiles and proportions of memory T-cell subsets. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we illuminated the respective characteristics of immune responses in AR, ACD, and AR combined with ACD. Meanwhile, we discovered that the PAR and SAR patients possessed different cytokine profiles and T-cell compartments. It suggested that these allergic conditions belong to different disease entities. Characterizing the detailed immune changes in these allergic diseases would help to develop proper treatments targeting particular immune elements in different allergic diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".