MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404397354 · doi:10.1159/000542115

Symptomatology and Management of Adult Anaphylaxis according to Trigger: A Cross-Sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4404397354 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Roy Khalaf, Connor Prosty, Christine McCusker, Adam Bretholz, Mohammed Kaouache, Ann E. Clarke, Judy Morris, Rodrick Lim, Edmond S. Chan, Ran D. Goldman, Andrew O’Keefe, Jennifer Gerdts, Derek K. Chu, Julia Upton, Elana Hochstadter, Jocelyn Moisan, Xun Zhang, Jennifer L P Protudier, Elissa M. Abrams, Elinor Simons, Juan Carlos Ruiz, Moshe Ben‐Shoshan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Immunology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisCégep de l'OutaouaisSickKids FoundationMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of TorontoBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreMcGill University Health CentreHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill UniversityVancouver General HospitalUniversity of CalgaryHospital for Sick ChildrenAllerGen
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsAnaphylaxisMedicineInterquartile rangeAllergyEpinephrineCross-sectional studyAngioedemaInternal medicineUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysisImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is an acute life-threatening allergy, most commonly provoked by food, venom, or drugs. There is limited data regarding differences in symptomatology between anaphylaxis provoked by different triggers. This study aimed to assess sociodemographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, and management of anaphylaxis, according to triggers in adults. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study recruiting adult patients with anaphylactic reactions across 8 emergency departments (EDs) and 1 electronic medical service (EMS) in Canada. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate symptoms involving all patients with the outcome of drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA), venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA), peanut-induced anaphylaxis (PIA), shellfish-induced anaphylaxis, tree-nut induced anaphylaxis (TIA) and nut-induced anaphylaxis (NIA). We assessed comorbidities associated with severe reactions, stratified by triggers listed above. Additionally, we evaluated the association of each trigger with treatment through regression models involving all patients with medications used as outcome and anaphylaxis triggers used as independent variables. RESULTS: From April 2011 to November 2023, 1,135 adults presenting with anaphylaxis to EDs were recruited. The median age was 35.5 (interquartile range 25.3-51.1). Most of the patients presented with FIA (50.3%). Regarding symptomatology, hypotension was more likely associated with DIA (aOR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.11-1.30, p < 0.01). When adjusted for age at reaction and male sex, alcohol was more likely associated (aOR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.04-2.19, p = 0.035) with NIA. Regarding management, TIA was more likely associated with inpatient epinephrine (aOR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.16-3.64, p = 0.014). DIA was less likely associated with outpatient antihistamine (aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.48-0.89, p < 0.01) whereas TIA was more likely associated with outpatient antihistamine (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.03-3.19, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Our study underscores associations between specific triggers, clinical manifestations and managements, such as the potential link between TIA and throat tightness and hypotension and VIA. Identifying such associations can aid with the prompt diagnosis of anaphylaxis in patients presenting to the ED, leading to swifter treatment initiation and improving overall outcomes.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and ImmunologySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207