Diagnostic Accuracy of Tryptase Levels for Pediatric Anaphylaxis: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction which can be difficult to diagnose. Two strategies evaluating changes in tryptase levels were proposed for diagnosing anaphylaxis. Strategy 1 established a threshold of tryptase levels during reaction exceeding 2 ng/mL + 1.2* (baseline tryptase levels) as a rule for detecting anaphylaxis, while strategy 2 established the ratio of tryptase levels during reaction versus baseline tryptase exceeding a threshold of 1.685. We aimed to compare the diagnostic test accuracy of the two strategies in pediatric anaphylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study. Cases consisted of 89 patients with anaphylaxis who had reaction tryptase and subsequent baseline tryptase measured. Controls consisted of 25 patients with chronic urticaria who had two tryptase measurements. Sensitivity and specificity for each of the strategies were computed and compared using McNemar test. The area under the curve (AUC) between the two strategies was compared using the DeLong test. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for strategy 1 was 53.3% and 95.0%, respectively. For strategy 2, the sensitivity and specificity was 54.4% and 85.0%, respectively. There was no significant difference between both strategies' sensitivity and specificity. The Delong test determined that the AUC was significantly (p < 0.05) higher for strategy 1 (0.69) than strategy 2 (0.64). CONCLUSION: The Delong test determined that strategy 1 was slightly better in validating anaphylaxis diagnosis than strategy 2. However, both strategies demonstrated a low sensitivity <55%. INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction which can be difficult to diagnose. Two strategies evaluating changes in tryptase levels were proposed for diagnosing anaphylaxis. Strategy 1 established a threshold of tryptase levels during reaction exceeding 2 ng/mL + 1.2* (baseline tryptase levels) as a rule for detecting anaphylaxis, while strategy 2 established the ratio of tryptase levels during reaction versus baseline tryptase exceeding a threshold of 1.685. We aimed to compare the diagnostic test accuracy of the two strategies in pediatric anaphylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study. Cases consisted of 89 patients with anaphylaxis who had reaction tryptase and subsequent baseline tryptase measured. Controls consisted of 25 patients with chronic urticaria who had two tryptase measurements. Sensitivity and specificity for each of the strategies were computed and compared using McNemar test. The area under the curve (AUC) between the two strategies was compared using the DeLong test. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for strategy 1 was 53.3% and 95.0%, respectively. For strategy 2, the sensitivity and specificity was 54.4% and 85.0%, respectively. There was no significant difference between both strategies' sensitivity and specificity. The Delong test determined that the AUC was significantly (p < 0.05) higher for strategy 1 (0.69) than strategy 2 (0.64). CONCLUSION: The Delong test determined that strategy 1 was slightly better in validating anaphylaxis diagnosis than strategy 2. However, both strategies demonstrated a low sensitivity <55%.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".