MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389224280 · doi:10.1542/peds.2023-064344jd

Predicting Probability of Tolerating Discrete Amounts of Peanut Protein in Allergic Children Using Epitope-Specific IgE Antibody Profiling

2023· article· en· W4389224280 on OpenAlexaff
Elinor Simons

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsManitoba Beekeepers' Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunoglobulin EEpitopeProfiling (computer programming)ImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated if sequential (linear) epitope-specific IgE (ses-IgE) profiling can determine the probability of tolerating discrete amounts of peanut protein in allergic individuals undergoing double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) to peanut by PRACTALL dosing.The study includes 406 peanut-allergic participants ages 4 to 25 years, 75 in the discovery cohort and 331 in the validation cohort, who underwent DBPCFC as part of 5 independent cohorts in multiple countries: BOPI (n = 68), OPIA (n = 56), CAFETERIA (n = 104), CoFAR6 (n = 84), and PEPITES (n = 94).A bead-based assay was used to evaluate epitope sequence and quantify 64 ses-IgE antibodies in blood samples. Regression models determined pairs of ses-IgEs that predicted Cumulative Tolerated Dose (CTD) in the discovery cohort. This epitope predictor was then applied to the validation cohort participants to improve the model generalizability. Individuals were grouped based on their predicted tolerated doses and probabilities of reactions at each CTD threshold were calculated.An algorithm using 2 ses-IgE antibodies (Ara h 2_008 and Ara h 3_100 epitopes) was correlated with CTDs (P = .61; P < .05) in the discovery cohort; the correlation was 0.51 (P < .05) in the validation cohort. Individuals assigned to a “high” dose reactivity group using the ses-IgE algorithm were about 4 times more likely to tolerate a given amount of peanut, compared with those assigned to the “low” dose reactivity group, eg, predicted probabilities of tolerating 4, 14, 44, 144, and 444 mg were 92%, 77%, 53%, 29%, and 10% in the “low” dose reactivity group, compared with 98%, 95%, 94%, 88%, and 73% in the “high” dose reactivity group.An epitope-based predictor accurately identified CTDs and may be a useful surrogate for peanut challenges, despite limitations including small numbers of individuals tolerating each threshold dose and variations in study challenge protocols.Higher IgE diversity has been associated with developing allergic symptoms after consuming smaller amounts of peanut protein. This study used peanut-specific epitopes to predict the probabilities of allergic reactions to different amounts of peanut in children with peanut allergy, generating a validated algorithm for detailed determination of threshold tolerance. This algorithm will inform the utility, safety, and dosing of oral peanut challenges for children with peanut allergy, and in some instances, may be a surrogate for DBPCFC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICS→Same topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research→French-language works237,207→