Epidemiology and risk factors of self-reported systemic allergic reactions to a Hymenoptera venom in beekeepers worldwide: a protocol for a systematic review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Systemic allergic reaction (SAR) to a Hymenoptera venom is a potentially life-threatening disorder. The rate of SAR between beekeepers in comparison with a healthy individual is different. The risk for an SAR is particularly high in beekeepers due to their persistent or seasonal exposure to the stinging Hymenoptera. We aim to provide a critical appraisal and a synthesis of evidence-based data from epidemiological observational studies, focusing on SARs to a Hymenoptera venom and the associated risk factors for SARs in beekeepers worldwide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Searching will include seven electronic databases for published studies without language restrictions, from inception up to 3 August 2021, and it will be rerun for all electronic databases prior publication. Only epidemiological observational studies in beekeepers will be included. The risk of bias in the included studies will be appraised by using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, adapted for cross-sectional studies. For the certainty of evidence, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used. Qualitative synthesis will be presented in a tabulated format with the selected characteristics across primary studies and the main outcome of interest. A meta-analysis is planned to be performed if there will be a sufficient number of homogeneous studies with complete data. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 statement will guide the reporting of this systematic literature review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CRD42021260922.
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 | 0.094 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 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".