Quality of life is lower in food allergic adolescents compared to young children at a community educational symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Food allergies (FA) can detrimentally impact physical, emotional, and psychological quality of life (QoL) among pediatric patients. Given the changes from childhood into adolescence, the impact of FA on QoL likely evolves with age. The purpose of this study was to determine whether QoL differed between adolescents and children with FA who participated in a Food Allergy Symposium (FAS). METHODS: Patients with confirmed FA were recruited at an educational community symposium in September 2018 and September 2019. Patients and/or their parents were invited to complete the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQ). The Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM) reflects concerns about accidental food exposure and disease severity. Higher FAIM and FAQLQ scores reflect worse QoL. Summary scores were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher's exact test, or the Chi-square test. RESULTS: Seventy-four surveys (82% children, 18% adolescents) were included. The FAQLQ total score was higher among adolescents than children (median 5.2 vs 4.2; p = 0.045), and the FAIM was lower in adolescents (median 2.2 vs 2.8; p = 0.037). More adolescents reported previous anaphylaxis than children (91.7% vs 51.8%; p = 0.011). The percentage reassured by having epinephrine was higher in adolescents (81.8% vs 45.8%; p = 0.046). No other QoL scores and survey responses were significantly different. DISCUSSION: In this study, adolescents were more concerned about their disease and more reassured by epinephrine carriage than younger children, which may reflect increased autonomy and responsibility. Community events are an important way to assess QoL and provide FA-related education to pediatric patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".