MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233869023 · doi:10.1186/s40413-015-0076-x

Consensus communication on early peanut introduction and the prevention of peanut allergy in high-risk infants

2015· article· en· W4233869023 on OpenAlexaffabout
David M. Fleischer, Scott H. Sicherer, Matthew Greenhawt, Dianne E. Campbell, Edmond S. Chan, Antonella Muraro, Susanne Halken, Yitzhak Katz, Motohiro Ebisawa, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, Hugh A. Sampson

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Allergy Organization Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeanut allergyMedicineAllergyPediatricsImmunologyFood allergy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this brief communication is to highlight emerging evidence to existing guidelines regarding potential benefits of supporting early, rather than delayed, peanut introduction during the period of complementary food introduction in infants. This document should be considered as interim guidance based on consensus among the following organizations: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy; Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; Israel Association of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; Japanese Society for Allergology; Society for Pediatric Dermatology; and World Allergy Organization. More formal guidelines regarding early-life, complementary feeding practices and the risk of allergy development will follow in the next year from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases - sponsored Working Group and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0180.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Allergy Organization JournalSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207