Oral and nasal provocation test in chicken egg allergy—case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Allergy to chicken egg protein is a common form of food allergy. The most common clinical presentation includes gastrointestinal, skin, and respiratory symptoms. Differential diagnosis, including provocative tests, is critical in diagnosis. CASE DESCRIPTION: We present a case of a 21-year-old patient with egg allergy, who underwent a double-blind food provocation test with placebo (evaluating subjective complaints from the gastrointestinal tract) and a titrated nasal provocation test using dry chicken egg content. We assessed the response of the nasal mucosa in the provocation test using the visual analogue scale (VAS), acoustic and optical rhinometry, as well as measurements of nitric oxide concentration in the exhaled air. During the provocation test, we measured the changes in the transverse section of the nasal passages, which were accompanied by subjective complaints measured with the VAS scale, using objective techniques. In the nasal provocation test with a dose of 20 µg of chicken egg protein, we observed an increase in the reactivity of the nasal mucosa and a decrease in the level of nitric oxide in the exhaled air from the upper airways (920 ppb before the provocation test and up to 867 ppb during the early stage of the allergic reaction). During the provocation tests, we recorded typical symptoms associated with the early stage of the allergic reaction; including nasal obstruction (1.2 cm), leakage of watery discharge (0.8 cm) in the food test, and itchy nose (1.1 cm) in the food test vs. the nasal test: 4.6, 2.8, and 3.5 cm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The nasal mucosa provides convenient conditions for evaluation of the severity of allergy to common food allergens, including chicken egg allergens.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".