The cow’s milk allergy that wasn’t: allergy to supplemental oral lactase enzyme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergy to supplemental lactase is sparsely reported in the literature with only one prior case of anaphylaxis documented [2]. Reactions to this agent can occur following cow's milk ingestion which could lead to an erroneous diagnosis of cow's milk allergy in the absence of another explanation. CASE PRESENTATION: Our patient, a 48-year-old male with eczema, exercise-induced asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis, presented with four episodes of systemic reactions characterized by mucosal swelling and asthma symptoms following ice-cream exposure. It was later recognized that he had been taking a lactase enzyme supplement just prior to all of his reactions. Epicutaneous testing was strongly positive to a saline slurry of the lactase supplement he had been using. The patient has been avoiding supplemental lactase since with no subsequent reactions. DISCUSSION: Our patient was diagnosed with an allergy to supplemental lactase enzyme on the basis of convincing Immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated symptoms and positive skin testing. He continued to eat cow's milk products, ruling out an IgE-mediated allergy to cow's milk. In the literature, there is one prior case of anaphylaxis documented. Another case of localized oropharyngeal symptoms described in the literature was thought to be a form of oral allergy syndrome as the patient had positive epicutaneous testing to Aspergillus oryzae-derived lactase as well as Aspergillus species. Occupational sensitization, rhinitis/asthma, and protein contact dermatitis have also been detailed in the literature. Although rare, this case highlights the importance of a thorough history of over-the-counter supplements when assessing a patient with features of anaphylaxis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".