Bibliographic record
Abstract
Along with house dust mites, allergies due to cockroach allergens are also a serious problem in the USA and Canada. Kang & Sulit (1978) carried out allergy skin tests in Illinois with cockroach antigen along with various common inhalant allergens on 222 atopic and on 63 non-atopic subjects. The most prevalent allergen producing a positive skin test was house dust mite antigen with a positive response of 72%, 78% and 57% in atopic adults, atopic children and non-atopic children, respectively. The next prevalent positive skin test was to cockroach antigen with 50%, 60% and 27%, respectively, of the three groups tested. Incidence of cockroach hypersensitivity was 58% among asthmatic adults and 69% among asthmatic children. The results indicate that cockroach hypersensitivity is very prevalent and that cockroach antigen is an independent agent from house dust mites as a cause of immediate hypersensitivity reaction. A number of studies have established that cockroaches are an important and independent risk factor for allergic asthma, particularly among urban, inner city, Afro-American or Hispanic populations in the USA. The frequency of allergy to cockroaches in asthmatic patients of these populations is around 50% and is related to indoor exposure to cockroach allergens (Rosenstreich et al. , 1997). Sarpong et al. (1996) observed that because cockroach populations are highest in crowded urban areas, it has been suggested that the increased asthma morbidity and mortality rates in inner cities could be related in part to cockroach allergen exposure; they examined cockroach allergen exposure in the homes of children with asthma in both urban and suburban locations and related the rates of exposure and sensitization to socioeconomic, racial and demographic factors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".